|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> WELL, THE FIRST ORDER, LIKE I SAID, IT WAS -- HE ORDERED -- HE REQUESTED A WHITE LILY. AND AN ORANGE ROSE WRAPPED TOGETHER WITH A RIBBON. AND THE CARD MESSAGE FOR THAT WAS TO READ, MY ORANGE ROSE AND MY LILY FOR KPAULS, XOXOXO. >> ARE THOSE THE WORDS OF A GRIEVING HUSBAND AND FATHER OR A COLD-BLOODED KILLER? THE NEIL ENTWISTLE MURDER TRIAL CONTINUES. THAT'S COMING UP RIGHT NOW ON OPEN COURT. >>> GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO OPEN COURT. I'M LISA BLOOM. IT WAS A DRAMATIC DAY OF TESTIMONY IN THE MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. IT STARTED WITH A DETAILED LOOK AT THE DNA EVIDENCE FROM THE MURDERS OF ENTWISTLE'S WIFE, RACHEL AND BABY, LILLIAN. THEN THE JURY HEARD ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S ACTIONS BEFORE THE VICTIM'S FUNERAL AND DURING HIS TRIP TO ENGLAND. CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS JOANS US NOW LIVE FROM WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS, WITH THE BIGGEST MOMENTS FROM THE TRIAL YESTERDAY. >> Reporter: TWO FRIENDS OF NEIL ENTWISTLE FROM YORK UNIVERSITY TOOK THE STAND YESTERDAY. HE FLED TO ENGLAND ON JANUARY 21st AND IN EARLY FEBRUARY 2006 HE CONTACTED HIS FRIENDS. ENTWISTLE HAD BEEN STAYING WITH HIS PARENTS ABOUT 150 MILES NORTH OF LONDON. HIS FRIENDS WERE IN LONDON. HE WANTED TO GO DOWN AND STAY WITH HIS FRIENDS TO TAKE HEAT OFF OF HIM BECAUSE THE MEDIA WAS CAMPED OUT AT HIS PARENTS' HOUSE. THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD THEM. SO HE WENT DOWN TO LONDON AND SPENT A FEW DAYS WITH THEM. THIS WAS JUST THE DAYS PRIOR TO HIS ARREST ON FEBRUARY 9th, 2006 HIS FRIENDS SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME WITH HIM DURING THOSE TWO DAYS AND THEY BOTH DESCRIBED HOW NEIL ENTWISTLE TOLD THEM WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO HIS WIFE AND CHILD. ONE OF HIS FRIENDS WUSZ BENJAMIN PRIOR. PRIOR TOLD THE JURY YESTERDAY ENTWISTLE'S EXPLANATION FOR FINDING HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER AND THEN HOW HE REACTED. >> FIRST HE EXPLAINED HE WAS TOTALLY DEVASTATED. SO HE WENT DOWNSTAIRS TO THE KITCHEN TO GET A KNIFE TO BASICALLY JUST COMMIT SUICIDE, SORT OF TO END IT, SO TO SPEAK BECAUSE HE WAS SO UPSET. BUT HE SORT OF EXPLAINED THAT HE HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT. SO HE THEN DROVE TO HIS PARENTS-IN-LAW'S HOUSE WITH THIS SORT OF OBJECTIVE OF GETTING A PISTOL FROM HIS STEPFATHER'S GUN COLLECTION BECAUSE HE KNEW HE HAD GUNS AND HE WOULD USE ONE OF THOSE INSTEAD. >> THE OTHER FRIEND TOLD THE JURY SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT ENTWISTLE'S EXPLANATION FOR GOING TO RACHEL'S PARENTS' HOUSE. >> HE SAYS THAT HE LEFT THE HOUSE. AND THAT HE WENT TO THE MATTERAZZO'S HOUSE, JOE AND PRISCILLA, THINKING THAT WAS THE ONLY PLACE HE KNEW THAT THERE MIGHT BE FIREARMS. >> DID HE TELL YOU WHY HE HAD GONE DOWN THERE FOR FIREARMS? >> YEAH. HE WANTED TO -- HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE SECURE AND THAT NOTHING WAS -- NOTHING WAS WRONG. NOTHING WAS MISSING. >> NOW, ENTWISTLE WAS STAYING WITH MUNDING. ON THE DAY OF THE ARREST, THAT MORNING MUNDING DID GET A CALL FROM THE POLICE THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR ENTWISTLE. MUNDING OFFERED TO DRIVE ENTWISTLE TO A TRAIN STATION SO HE COULD TAKE A TRAIN BACK AND ENTWISTLE SAID, NO, I'LL TAKE THE TUBE INTO LONDON AND HE GOT ARRESTED AT THAT SUBWAY STATION, AT THE TUBE STATION. MUNDING WAS PRESENT. DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE THE ARREST. >> WE KNOW NEIL ENTWISTLE DID NOT ATTEND THE FUNERAL FOR HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER. THERE WERE NO RESTRICTIONS ON HIS TRAVEL. HE WAS CERTAINLY FREE TO GET ON A PLANE FROM ENGLAND, COME BACK TO MASSACHUSETTS, GO TO THAT FUNERAL. HE DIDN'T GO TO THE FUNERAL AND WE DID HEAR YESTERDAY FROM A FLORIST ON THE STAND, KELLY EGAN WHO DESCRIBED THE NOTE THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE SENT WITH SOME FLOWERS TO THE FUNERAL. TAKE A LISTEN TO THIS. >> THE SECOND ORDER WAS A LARGE SPRAY OF PINK AND WHITE FLOWERS, OF LILIES AND ROSES. A $100 ORDER. >> AND WHO DID HE SAY THAT WAS FROM? >> THE CARD MESSAGE READ, TO RACHEL AND OUR PRECIOUS GRANDDAUGHTER. IF TEARS COULD BUILD A STAIRWAY, AND MEMORIES A LANE, WE WOULD WALK RIGHT UP TO HEAVEN AND BRING YOU HOME AGAIN. WITH LOVE ALWAYS, E VONN, DWRAND MA, CLIFF, GRAND DAD, UNCLE RUSSY. >> BETH, THE JURY HEARD ABOUT TWO DIRNT SETS OF FLOWERS AND NOTES THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE ARRANGED, RIGHT? ONE FROM THE FAMILY AND ONE FROM HIM PERSONALLY? >> YES. ACTUALLY HE MADE THOSE -- THAT CALL FOR THOSE TWO ORDERS ON JANUARY 30th. EXCUSE ME. AND THE WAKE WAS THE 31st. HE CALLED AGAIN ON THE 31st AND PLACED A THIRD ORDER FROM FRIENDS AND FAMILY IN ENGLAND. >> OKAY. AND WE HAVE -- WE HAVE A GRAPHIC OF THE NOTE THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WROTE. THIS IS THE NOTE THAT HE PUT WITH THE FLOWERS THAT HE SENT TO THE FUNERAL. SO HE ORDERED THREE SETS OF FLOWERS. THE FIRST SET WAS A SINGLE ORANGE ROSE AND A SINGLE WHITE LILY WRAPPED IN A RIBBON WITH A CARD THAT READ, QUOTE, MY OERNL ROSE AND MY LILY FOR ALWAYS, XOXOXO. MY ORANGE ROSE AND MY LILY FOR ALWAYS. BETH, HOW DID THAT TESTIMONY PLAY IN THE COURTROOM? I THINK ONE OF THE MOST COMPELLING POINTS THAT EVERYONE HAS POINTED TO THIS CASE OVER AND OVER IS THAT NOT ONLY THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE DIDN'T CALL THE POLICE WHEN HE FOUND THE BODIES BUT HE DIDN'T COME BACK FOR THE FUNERALS OF HIS WIFE AND HIS BABY. >> Reporter: YOU KNOW, THE JURORS WERE JUST LISTENING VERY ATTENTIVELY, TAKING A LOT OF NOTES. ESPECIALLY DURING THE TWO FRIENDS, WHEN THEY WERE TESTIFYING ABOUT THE STATEMENTS THAT ENTWISTLE GAVE THEM ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THE DAY HE FOUND THE BODIES. BUT THEY JUST WERE TAKING A LOT OF NOTES. I COULDN'T REALLY SEE ANY OTHER EMOTION. CERTAINLY IT WAS STRONG TESTIMONY IN THE AFTERNOON FOR THE PROSECUTION. WE THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO GO RIGHT FROM DNA EVIDENCE TO COMPUTER FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND ALL OF THE SUDDEN THERE WERE THESE CIVILIANS IN THE MIDDLE OF IT ALL. IT WAS A POWERFUL AFTERNOON FOR THE PROSECUTORS. >> BETH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD STRATEGY TO SOMETIMES BREAK UP SOME OF THAT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. THE FORENSICS IS SO IMPORTANT BUT THE MIND CAN ONLY RETAIN SO MUCH ABOUT ALEGALS AND NUCLEI AND SOMETIMES IT'S GOOD TO GET REAL-LIFE WITNESSES IN. BOTH OF THESE BRITISH FRIENDS OF NEIL ENTWISTLE SAY THAT ENTWISTLE TOLD THEM THAT HE HAD NOTIFIED THE POLICE, RIGHT? >> Reporter: YES. HE DID -- HE TOLD MUNDING THAT. HE TOLD HIM HE HAD ALSO GONE TO PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO'S OFFICE. BUT HE DIDN'T SAY WHETHER OR NOT HE ACTUALLY SPOKE TO PRISCILLA. BUT HE DID SAY HE SPOKE TO THE POLICE. AND TO BENJAMIN PRIOR, PRIOR RECALLS THAT ENTWISTLE SAID THAT HE WENT TO MATTERAZZO'S OFFICE AND -- AND SPOKE WITH HER AND THEY WERE COMMISERATING OVER WHAT HAD HAPPENED. >> DID HE EXPLAIN TO HIS FRIENDS, BETH, WHY HE HAD LEFT MASSACHUSETTS AND RETURNED TO ENGLAND? >> Reporter: I DON'T RECALL THE DETAILS ABOUT WHY. I DO KNOW THAT IN ONE OF HIS STATEMENTS HE SAYS THAT THE POLICE GAVE HIM PERMISSION TO LEAVE AND IT WAS OKAY. >> UH-HUH. >> Reporter: I BELIEVE THAT MICHAEL FABBRI WAS GETTING TO THAT WITH BENJAMIN PRIOR. PRIOR NEVER ACTUALLY SAID IT. >> HE EVEN WENT OUT TO A MOVIE WITH ONE OF HIS FRIENDS? THIS IS A LIVE SHOT OF NEIL ENTWISTLE COMING INTO THE COURTROOM THIS MORNING. WE EXPECT TESTIMONY TO GET UNDER WAY SHORTLY. YOU SEE BOTH PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARRIVING, GOING IMMEDIATELY TO SIDE BAR. BY THE WAY, LET ME SWITCH MY QUESTION NOW THAT I SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE COURTROOM. BECAUSE NEIL ENTWISTLE, THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE GOES TO SIDE BAR WITH THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS CASE. HE'S BEEN DOING THAT CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL. THAT'S SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL, ISN'T IT? >> Reporter: IT IS UNUSUAL. I MEAN, WE DO SEE IT HAPPEN AT LEAST IN JURY SELECTION. THERE'S A LOT OF CASE LAW, FOR EXAMPLE, IN NEW YORK STATE GOING BACK YEARS WHERE DEFENDANTS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE AT SIDE BAR DURING JURY SELECTION. IT'S CONSIDERED A CRITICAL STAGE OF THE TRIAL. AT ANY POINT WHEN IT'S A CRITICAL STAGE OF THE TRIAL THE DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO BE THERE. I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF WIDELY ACCEPTED. BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS THE JUDGE'S DISCRETION WHETHER OR NOT TIE LOU HIM UP THERE. IT'S NOT AS THOUGH HE'S TOTALLY CLOSED OUT. HIS LAWYERS CAN INFORM HIM WHAT'S GOING ON. THE DEFENSE PROBABLY MADE A MOTION FOR IT AND GOT THE COURT'S PERMISSION. IT JUST SHOWS THAT HE'S INTERACTING AND THE JURORS GET TO SEE HIM WALKING AROUND AND ET CETERA. >> I HAVE TO SAY I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. WHEN I WAS TRACK TISING LAW AND TRYING CASES I DIDN'T LIKE THERE WAS SO MANY TIMES WHEN THE ATTORNEYS WERE CALLED TO ONE SIDE AND THE CLIENTS SAT THERE. IT WAS AS IF THERE WAS THIS AIR OF SEE KRESSY, SOMETHING THEY COULDN'T KNOW. THIS WAS THEIR CASE. I FELT THEY HAD A RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT ALL PROCEEDINGS. I DON'T SEE WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT AS LONG AS THEY APPEAR APPROPRIATELY AT SIDE BAR. IT APPEARS NEIL ENTWISTLE IS DOING THAT. I HAVE TWO GUESTS, A FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST AND THE AUTHOR OF SEVERAL BOOKS INCLUDING THE RACE TRAP. IT'S GREAT TO SEE YOU DR. SIMMERING. AND JOINING US LIVE FROM WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS, IS PETER ELIKANN. YOU KNOW HIM WELL. HE'S A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER TV REPORTER, BUT WE WON'T HOLD THAT AGAINST YOU, PETER. AND AUTHOR OF THE TOUGH ON CRIME MYTH, REAL SOLUTIONS TO CUT CRIME. GREAT TO HAVE YOU BACK. DR. SIMMERING, LET ME BEGIN YOU. NEIL ENTWISTLE'S STORY HE TOLD TO HIS FRIENDS THE JURY HEARD YESTERDAY WOULD YOU DESCRIBE HE CAME UPON THE CRIME SCENE, HE CAME UPON HIS YOUNG WIFE AND 9-MONTH-OLD BABY DAUGHTER SHOT IN BED. HIS FIRST REACTION WAS THAT HE WANTED TO KILL HIMSELF. WHY WOULD SUICIDE BE AN IMPULSE IF HE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG. >> I SUPPOSE SOMEBODY CAN BE THOROUGHLY GRIEF STRICKEN. IT'S CERTAINLY REASONABLE. SOMEBODY CAN -- I IMAGINE ANY OF US WHO RETURN HOME AND FIND OUR SPOUSE AND OUR CHILD DEAD, SAY, FROM, I DON'T KNOW, GAS INHALATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, YOU MAY BECOME DESPONDENT. THAT'S REASONABLE AS FAR AS -- >> IT? I THINK RAGE. RAGE. SHOCK. I GET SHOCK. HOW ABOUT RAGE? HOW ABOUT I'M GOING TO CATCH THOSE KILLERS? I'M GOING TO CALL THE POLICE. I'M GOING TO SPEND THE REST OF MY LIFE LOOKING FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DID THIS TO MY WIFE AND BABY. ISN'T THAT THE NORMAL FAMILY REACTION? >> OFTEN COMES LATER. SOMETIMES THE RAGE COMES LATER. OFTEN THERE'S A SENSE OF DESPON DENSY AND FRUSTRATION FIRST. I'M NOT SAYING THIS STORY MAKES A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE. >> UH-HUH. >> THE PROBLEM -- I MEAN, THIS IS A VERY ODD CASE. BECAUSE SO LITTLE IS REALLY KNOWN. I MEAN, FOR ALL THE WORDS THAT ARE WRITTEN ABOUT IT, THERE REALLY IS NOT A WHOLE LOT KNOWN ABOUT HIM, ABOUT THEM, ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG THEM. >> UH-HUH. >> THERE'S SOMETHING VERY, VERY MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WHOLE THING. >> PETER ELIKANN, HOW IMPORTANT ULTIMATELY TO THE JURY WILL NEIL ENTWISTLE'S BEHAVIOR AFTER THE MURDERS BE? HIS FLEEING TO ENGLAND. HIS TALKING TO HIS FRIENDS. HIS GOING TO SEE THE MOVIE, THE JIM CARRIE MOVIE FUN WITH DICK AND JANE? >> I THINK THAT'S THE WORST THING OF ALL. I TALKED TO PEOPLE OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS ABOUT THIS CASE, PARTICULARLY NONLAWYERS. MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FORENSICS AND THE DNA, FINGERPRINTS AND ALL THAT STUFF, EVERYBODY'S GUT VISCERAL REACTION IS SORT OF LIKE, I WOULD NEVER JUST GET ON A PLANE, NOT TELL ANYBODY, NOT CALL THE POLICE AND DISAPPEAR. THEN THAT BUSINESS ABOUT NOT COMING TO THE FUNERAL. I MEAN, THERE'S REASONS AND EXPLANATIONS YOU COULD COME UP WITH FOR THAT. BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO PASS THE SMELL TEST FOR ANYBODY THAT I TALK TO. IT'S PROBABLY THE WORST THING FOR HIM. >> OH, COME ON. HE SENT FLOWERS. HE SENT SOME CARDS. ISN'T THAT GOOD ENOUGH? I'M BEING SARCASTIC. I THINK IT'S HORRENDOUS. I THINK HIS BEHAVIOR AFTER THE MURDERS IS HORRENDOUS. STATE POLICE CHEMIST LAURA BRYANT HAS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE DNA MATCHES SHE FOUND. AS SHE TESTED THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE SHE SAID SHE WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE THE DNA ON THE GUN BARREL MATCHED RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND THE DNA ON THE REVOLVER HANDLE HATCHED NEIL ENTWISTLE. BRYANT ALSO TESTIFIED TO THE SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY OF HER FINDINGS. >> I CALCULATED THAT THE PROBABILITY OF A RANDOMLY SELECTED INDIVIDUAL HAVING A DNA PROFILE MATCHING THAT OBTAINED FROM THIS ITEM WAS APPROXIMATELY 1 IN 5.299 TRILLION OF THE CAUCASIAN POPULATION, ONE IN 369.1 TRILLION OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION, AND ONE IN 5.942 TRILLION OF THE HISPANIC POPULATION. >> SO TODAY'S QUESTION OF THE DAY IS, IS THE DNA CONCLUSIVE? YOU CAN SEND US YOUR ANSWERS. JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON OPEN COURT. OR E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT OPENCOURT@CNN.COM. WRITE A BRIEF ANSWER AND WE'LL READ ONE OF YOUR RESPONSES AT THE END OF THE SHOW. WELCOME BACK. WE ARE LIVE. A NEW WITNESS HAD JUST TAKEN THE STAND OUT OF ORDER. HIS NAME IS MICHAEL FEE. IT'S AN ATTORNEY FOR KIM PWE,G. SHE WAS OWNER OF THE HOUSE THE ENTWISTLES RENTED. HE JUST TESTIFIED HE SENT A LETTER TO NEIL ENTWISTLE PRESUMABLY ASKING FOR MONEY OR THE LEASE TO BE TERMINATED. HE HAS A TAPE OF A VOICE MAIL THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE LEFT FOR HIM IN RESPONSE. THAT'S ABOUT TO BE PLAYED FOR THE JURY. LET'S LISTEN. >> SO DID YOU HEAR THE >> WAS THAT THE VOICE MESSAGE THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON IDENTIFIED AS NEIL EPT WISLE ON FEBRUARY 7, 2006? >> IT WAS. >> LATER THAT MORNING, SIR, DID YOU RECEIVE A PHONE CALL? >> I DID. >> FROM WHOM DID YOU RECEIVE A PHONE CALL? >> FROM MR. ENTWISTLE. >> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM? >> I DID. >> WAS THAT CONVERSATION CONCERNING SIX CUBS PATH? >> IT WAS. >> CAN YOU TELL US WHAT MR. ENTWISTLE SAID TO YOU DURING THE CONVERSATION AND WHAT YOU SAID TO HIM? >> MR. ENTWISTLE BEGAN BY APOLOGIZING FOR TAKING SOME TIME TO GET BACK TO ME. HE EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN OVER THE FACT THAT HE HAD BEEN UNABLE TO RETRIEVE THE LETTERS FROM HIS LOCAL POST OFFICE IN ENGLAND AND THAT IT TOOK HIM SOME TIME TO DO THAT. WE THEN DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE LETTERS. AND ADDRESSED THE FACT THAT THE PUIGS WERE CONCERNED THAT THE PREMISES HAD BEEN ABANDONED, THAT FEBRUARY RENT HAD NOT BEEN PAID AND THAT THEY WANTED, IF NEIL WAS NOT GOING TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES, TO RETAKE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. AND IN CONSISTENT WITH THE VOICE MAIL MESSAGE THAT MR. ENTWISTLE LEFT FOR ME, HE STATED THAT HE HAD NO INTENTION OF RETURNING TO THE UNITED STATES, THAT HE DIDN'T CARE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PROPERTY, BUT SUGGESTED THAT I SPEAK WITH MR. AND MRS. MATTERAZZO ABOUT DISPOSING OF THE ITEMS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT WERE WITHIN THE HOUSE. AT SOME POINT HE ALSO EXPRESSED A DESIRE FOR ME TO SET ASIDE AND DELIVER TO HIM AT SOME POINT THE JEWELRY THAT WAS IN THE HOUSE. AND WE DISCUSSED THOSE ISSUES AND AGREED THAT I WOULD WRITE DOWN AN AGREEMENT THAT HE WOULD SIGN SETTING FORTH ALL THE TERMS THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED. >> IS THAT ESSENTIALLY HOW THE PHONE CALL ENDED, WITH THE AGREEMENT TO PUT TOGETHER AN AGREEMENT? >> THAT'S AS I RECALL, YES. >> AND THEREAFTER, SIR, WHAT DID YOU DO IN THAT REGARD? >> I -- I BELIEVE I SPOKE TO MY CLIENTS AND THEN PREPARED AN AGREEMENT WHICH I THEN E-MAILED TO MR. ENTWISTLE. >> AND DID YOU RECEIVE A RESPONSE FROM THAT E-MAIL? >> I DID NOT. >> SIR, I'VE HANDED YOU A MULTI-PAGE DOCUMENT. PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO LOOK AT THE FRONT PAGE AND ALL THE PAGES. >> OKAY. >> YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT? >> I HAVE. >> AND DO YOU RECOGNIZE THOSE DOCUMENTS? >> I DO. >> WHAT ARE THEY? >> THE FIRST PAGE IS AN E-MAIL. THE FIRST PORTION OF WHICH IS MY E-MAIL TO MR. ENTWISTLE ENCLOSING THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT. THE SECOND PART OF THIS IS MR. ENTWISTLE'S RESPONSE DATED FEBRUARY 8, 2006, IN WHICH HE THANKS ME FOR GETTING THE AGREEMENT TO HIM AND RAISES SOME ISSUES REGARDING APPENDIX A TO THE AGREEMENT. >> ARE THOSE TRUE AND ACCURATE COPIES OF THE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS THAT YOU SENT MR. ENTWISTLE AND RECEIVED FROM HIM? >> YES. >> THE NEXT EXHIBIT? >> IT MAY BE MARKED WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> EXHIBIT 83 MARKED. >> SIR, DID YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATION WITH MR. ENTWISTLE FOLLOWING THE E-MAIL YOU SENT TO HIM AND THE RESPONSE THAT HE SENT TO YOU? >> NO. >>> THERE'S STILL TIME TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS INTO "OPEN COURT" AND ANSWER OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY. IS THE DNA EVIDENCE CONCLUSIVE IN THE ENTWISTLE CASE? WHAT DO YOU THINK? JUST LONON TO CNN.COM SLASH CRIME AND CLICK ON OPEN COURT OR E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT OPENCOURT@CNN.COM. ON THE STAND LIVE IS MICHAEL FEE. HE WAS THE ATTORNEY FOR KIM PUIG, THE HOMEOWNER OF THE HOUSE RENTED TO THE ENTWISTLES PL HE'S ON CROSS-EXAMINATION NOW TALKING ABOUT THE MANY BOXES THAT WERE IN THE HOUSE AND HIS ATTEMPTS TO ASOLVE WHAT TO DO WITH HIM. LET'S LISTEN. >> IT WAS A HOPKINTON POLICE OFFICER WHO ACCOMPANIED US TO THE HOUSE AND WAS THERE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. BUT HE DID NOT REMAIN THE ENTIRE TIME THAT WE WERE IN THE HOUSE. >> WHEN YOU LEFT THE HOME AND HAD GATHERED UP WHATEVER YOU GATHERED UP, WAS THERE A STATE POLICE OFFICER OR A HOPKINTON POLICE OFFICER THERE TO INVENTORY WHAT YOU WERE TAKING? >> NO. >> AT ANY TIME WHILE YOU WERE COLLECTING THE MATERIALS THAT YOU COLLECTED, DID ANYBODY FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT GO THROUGH WHAT IT WAS THAT YOU WERE TAKING? >> NO. >> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WAS ANYBODY FROM THE STATE POLICE OR THE HOPKINTON POLICE THERE AND GOING THROUGH AND INVENTORYING WHAT THE PUIGS GATHERED UP? >> NOT WHILE I WAS THERE. >> DID ANYBODY FROM THE STATE POLICE EVER COME TO WHERE YOU HAD THESE BOXES IN STORAGE AND GO THROUGH THEM? >> AT SOME POINT A STATE TROOPER CAME TO MY OFFICE. >> DID YOU HEAR AN UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION, MR. FEE? >> I DID. >> OKAY. >> I WAS ATTEMPTING TO ANSWER IT. >> WELL, DID SOMEBODY FROM THE STATE POLICE COME AND GO THROUGH AND ENVENN TOIR THE BOXES? >> NO. >> AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE FROM THE HOPKINTON POLICE CAME AND INVENTORIED THE BOXES THAT YOU HELD IN STORAGE? >> NO. >> DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE FROM THE STATE POLICE OR THE HOPKINTON POLICE WENT THROUGH AND INVENTORIED THE CONTENT OF THE MATERIALS, WHATEVER THEY WERE, THAT THE PUIGS KEPT IN STORAGE? >> I DON'T KNOW. >> ALL RIGHT. I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >>> PETER ELIKANN ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, ELLIOT WINESTEIN MADE THE POINT THAT THE POLICE DID NOT GO THROUGH AND INVENTORY THE BOXES THAT WERE LEFT BEHIND IN THE HOUSE. IS THAT A SIGNIFICANT POINT FOR THE DEFENSE? >> I DON'T QUITE KNOW WHERE THE DEFENSE IS GOING WITH THAT. >> SHODDY POLICE INVESTIGATION, I SUPPOSE? >> EXACTLY. IN A GENERAL WAY HE'S GOING TO AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AS HE'S DONE THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE TRIAL KIND OF KNOCK THE POLICE WORK, SHODDY POLICE WORK. THEY DIDN'T TAKE DNA IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE HOUSE. THEY DIDN'T DO BLOOD TESTS IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE HOUSE. AGAIN AND AGAIN HE'S GOING TO TRY TO PAINT THIS GENERALIZED PICTURE ABOUT THE POLICE NEGLECTED THIS AND THAT. IN THAT WAY I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY PART OF HIS THEME THAT'S JUST RUN THROUGHOUT THE CASE. IF THERE'S ANYTHING PARTICULARLY SPECIFIC HE'S GETTING AT, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET. I'M SURE I WILL WHEN THE DEFENSE COMES ON, THOUGH. >> ALL RIGHT. OFFICER LAWRENCE JAMES IS BACK ON THE STAND. LET'S TAKE A LISTEN. DR. SIMMERING, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT THE JURY HEARD NEIL ENTWISTLE'S VOICE IN THE COURTROOM, WHEN THAT VOICE MAIL WAS PLAYED. HE SOUNDS VERY CALM AND STRAIGHTFORWARD, WORKING OUT THE LEGAL MATTER OF HOW TO GET RID OF THE HOUSE HE HAD JUST RENTED. DOES THAT MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU THAT HE SOUNDS SO CALM, DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A GRIEF STRICKEN HUSBAND. >> HE'S BRITISH, AFTER ALL. >> HEY, NOW. >> THEY DO HAVE A STIFF UPPER LIP. I TELL YOU ONE THING. I'M SURE AS THIS THING GOES FORWARD I'M GOING TO BE AT ODDS WITH ALL THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND EVERYTHING. HE HAS GOT TO TAKE THE STAND. IF HE HAS ANY CHANCE AT ALL, HE HAS GOT TO TAKE THE STAND. AND HE'S GOT TO HAVE A STORY. BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF THESE CASES LIKE THIS, THERE HAS TO BE A STORY. HE HAS TO PRESENT SOME COHERENT STORY. SO FAR WHAT HE'S SAID DOES NOT MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE. >> IF HE'S GOT ONE, IF HE'S GOT ONE. IF HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE MAYBE IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO TESTIFY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE LIVE TESTIMONY. LET'S LISTEN. >> -- IS THE FIRST BOLDED WITH A KOE LON WORD. >> TYPE. >> AND IS THERE A WORD NEXT TO THAT? >> YES. >> AND WHAT DOES THAT -- WHAT IS THAT WORD? >> THAT IS URL. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. >> THAT'S SHORT FOR UNIFORM RESOURCE LOCATER. >> IN LAYMEN'S TERMS WHAT IS A UNIFORM RESOURCE LOCATE ZBLEFR A UNIFORM RESOURCE LOCATER IS A STANDARDIZED PROTOCOL TO GET TO ANY RESOURCE THAT'S AVAILABLE ON THE WEB. >> NEXT TO IT IS THERE ANOTHER TWO LETTERS AND A DASH AND SOME OTHER LETTERS? >> NEXT TO TYPE? >> YES. >> NO. >> I APOLOGIZE. BELOW THAT, DO YOU SEE THE NEXT WORD? >> YES. >> AND WHAT IS THAT? >> INDEX TYPE. >> AND IS THERE A WORD NEXT TO THAT? >> YES. >> WHAT IS THAT? >> THAT'S HISTORY. >> OKAY. AND WITH REGARDS TO INDEX TYPE AND HISTORY, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> IT WAS -- THIS RECORD WAS RETRIEVED FROM A HISTORY FILE. >> WHAT'S A HISTORY FILE? >> A HISTORY FILE IS A FILE, IN THIS CASE, INTERNET EXPLORER NAMED INDEX.DAT. AND IT IS USED BY THE BROWSER TO STORE VISITS, TO KEEP TRACK OF WEBSITES, AND MANAGE RESOURCES. >> NOW, NEXT TO THAT IS TWO LETTERS AND THEN A DASH AND THEN SOME MORE LETTERS. >> YES. >> OKAY. AND WHAT ARE THOSE LETTERS? >> UC-MSIE 5 PLUS. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. >> THAT INDICATES THAT THE BROWSER IN QUESTION IS GREATER THAN VERSION 5 MICROSOFT, INTERNET EXPLORER 5 PLUS. >> NEXT TO THAT THERE'S ANOTHER WORD WITH A COLON. WHAT'S THAT? >> THAT'S THE FILE OFFSET. >> WHAT IS THE FILE OFFSET NUMBER? >> THAT WOULD BE THE LOCATION INSIDE THE INDEX DAT FILE THAT THIS RECORD WAS RETRIEVED FROM. >> OKAY. AND WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN, MR. JAMES, BASED ON YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE? >> IT'S JUST A POINT ON THE HARD DRIF OR IN THE FILE IF YOU WANTED TO REFERENCE EXACTLY WHERE THIS ENTRY CAME FROM IN THAT FILE, YOU'D USE THE FILE OFFSET TO GO DIRECTLY TO IT. >> NOW, BELOW IT IS ANOTHER WORD WITH A COLON. WHAT'S THAT WORD? >> LAST VISITED? >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> THAT'S THE DATE THAT THIS VISIT OCCURRED RELATIVE TO THIS URL. >> WHAT IS THE DATE IN TIME THAT THIS VISIT OCCURRED? >> IT'S 1-16-2006 AT 1254:45. >> NEXT TO THAT IS ANOTHER TIME ZONE SETTING, CORRECT? >> YES. >> WHAT'S NEXT TO THAT? >> MINUS 0500. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> THAT'S THE TIME OFFSET FROM THE UNIVERSAL -- COORDINATED UNIVERSAL TIME. >> WITH REGARD TO THIS COMPUTER, YOU DETERMINED THE TIME WITH YOUR NEXTEL, SHAKT? >> I TOOK A READING OF THE TIME ON THE BIOS AND I MATCHED IT TO MY NECK TELL TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY DIFFERENCES. >> AND THERE WAS A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN SECONDS. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> BELOW THAT IT SAYS SERVER MODIFIED WITH A COLON. AND IS THERE A WORD NEXT TO THAT? >> BELOW -- >> TIME VISITED. >> ACTUALLY, IT SAYS LAST VISITED UTC. >> OKAY. BELOW LAST VISITED, WHAT'S THE NEXT COLUMN? >> TO THE RIGHT OF IT? >> OH, I'M SORRY. TO THE RIGHT OF IT, WHAT'S THERE? >> LAST VISITED UTC. >> OKAY. NOW, THE NEXT ROW DOWN IS THERE A WORD THERE? >> YES. USER. >> AND WHO WAS THE USER? >> THAT'S THE USER ACCOUNT THAT WAS LOGGED ON TO THE COMPUTER WHEN THIS WEBSITE WAS VISITED. THAT USER IS ENT. >> AND JUST TO RECALL, ENT IS A PASSWORD PROTECTED USER? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> THAT MEANS THAT IN ORDER TO ACCESS THIS ACCOUNT ON THE COMPUTER IN QUESTION, ONE WOULD NEED TO SUPPLY THE USER NAME AND A PASSWORD. >> THE NEXT ONE DOWN IS HISTORY FILE, COLLIN. AND THAT IS BLANK, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THE NEXT LINE DOWN IS RESOURCE COLON, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND WHAT IS RESOURCE COLON AND WHAT IS IN THAT AREA? >> THE RESOURCE AREA IS -- MENTIONS THE RESOURCE OF THE TITLE. IN THIS CASE WHAT WAS PERFORMED ON THE SEARCH THAT DAY. >> AND WHAT WAS -- WHAT DOES IT SAY IN THAT RESOURCE AREA? >> THE RESOURCE AREA IN THIS IS, IN QUOTATION MARKS, HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE. >> NOW, BELOW THAT IS A URL COLUMN. FAIR TO SAY? >> YES. >> AND WHAT IS -- IN THIS CONTEXT, URL COLON MEAN? >> IT MEANS THE SAME AS A UNIFORM RESOURCE LOCATER IN THAT IT GIVES THE EXACT URL THAT WAS DISPLAYED ON THAT VISIT TO THAT WEBSITE. >> OKAY. FIRST, WHAT DO THE WORDS SAY? >> TO THE RIGHT OF URL? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> HTTP: WWW.GOOGLE.COM. SEARCH QUESTION MARK, HL EQUALS EN & Q EQUALS PERCENTAGE 22 HOW PLUS TWO PLUS KILL PLUS WITH PLUS A PLUS KNIFE PLUS PERCENTAGE 22. >> YESTERDAY YOU TESTIFIED PERCENTAGE 22 MEANT SPACE, CORRECT? >> YES. >> IS THAT CORRECT? >> NO, IT IS NOT CORRECT. IT'S ACTUALLY YUN CODE FOR A QUOTATION MARK. >> WITHIN A GOOGLE SEARCH WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A QUOTATION MARK AROUND -- AROUND A TERM? >> IT'S ONE OF THE ADVANCED FEATURES YOU CAN USE ON GOOGLE WHICH CAN, IN THIS CASE, IT'S VERY RESTRICTIVE. IT TELLS THE SEARCH TO LOOK FOR THAT EXACT PHRASE. IT'LL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FALSE POSITIVES AND THE RETURNS THAT COME BACK FROM GOOGLE. >> AND FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT USED TO USING GOOGLE, WHAT IS GOOGLE AGAIN? >> GOOGLE IS A SEARCH ENGINE AVAILABLE VIA THE WEB. >> AND WHEN YOU SAY SEARCH ENGINE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WITH REGARDS TO LOOKING UP DOCUMENTS, PICTURES, PHRASES. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> OVER THE YEARS, GOOGLE HAS USED CRAWLERS TO GO ON THE WEB AND VISIT ANY WEBSITE THAT'S AVAILABLE, DOWN LOAD ANY CONTENT THAT IT CAN GET TO ON THE WEB, AND IT MAINTAINS A COPY OF ALL OF THAT. IT THEN ALLOWS YOU TO GO AHEAD AND SEARCH ALL OF THAT MATERIAL. >> NOW, THERE'S A SECOND BOX BELOW THAT. WHAT IS THAT SECOND BOX? >> THAT'S ANOTHER URL, INTERNET HISTORY RECORD. >> AND IS IT SET UP IN THE SAME FORMAT AS THE FIRST ONE THAT YOU JUST TESTIFIED TO WITH REGARDS TO THE NAMES OF THE DIFFERENT PLACES AND THEIR INDEX? LIKE, AS FOR INSTANCE, TYPE, COLON? >> YES. >> NEXT TO TYPE COLON, WHAT ARE THE WORDS? >> CASHED. >> WHAT DOES CASHED MEANS? >> THAT MEANS THAT THIS RECORD CAME FROM A CASHED RESOURCE ON THE HARD DRIVE. >> WHAT'S NEXT TO INDEX TYPE, COLON? >> CASH. >> WHAT IS NEXT TO LAST VISITED, COLON? >> 1-16-2006, 1254:45. >> IS THERE ANYTHING NEXT TO THE SERVER MODIFIED COLON? >> YES. >> WHAT'S NEXT TO THAT? >> 7-15-2004, AND 2334:37. >> OKAY. AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS WITH REGARD TO THIS? >> YES. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> THIS -- THIS -- THE SERVER MODIFIED DATE ALLOWS THE BROWSER TO KEEP TRACK OF RESOURCES THAT IT PULLS DOWN FROM SITES. SO IF YOU WERE TO REVISIT THAT SITE, THE BROWSER WOULD CHECK THAT LOCAL COPY TO SEE IF IT'S CHANGED ON THE WEBSITE. AND IF IT HAD NOT CHANGED, IT WOULD USE THE COPY YOU HAVE LOCALLY TO MAKE THINGS FASTER. >> NEXT TO USER COLON, WHAT'S THERE? >> ENT. >> NEXT TO HISTORY FILE, COLON, WHAT'S THERE? >> NOTHING. >> NEXT TO RESOURCE, COLON, WHAT'S THERE? >> DW BRACKET 1 BRACKET.JS. >> WHAT'S THAT MEAN. >> THAT'S THE ACTUAL RESOURCE THAT WAS CASHED TO THE HARD DRIVE WHEN THE BROWSER VISITED THIS WEBSITE. >> NEXT TO URL, COLON, WHAT IS THERE? >> THERE'S ANOTHER URL. HTTP:FORRUMS.G 4 TV.COM/DW.JS. >> HAVING REVIEWED THIS FILE IN DWROUR YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT REFERS TO. >> IT WAS A JAVA SCRIPT FILE. >> WHAT'S THAT? >> IT'S ANOTHER TYPE OF LANGUAGE AND FORMATTING THAT IS USED ON WEBSITES. >> OKAY. NOW THERE'S A THIRD BOX ON THIS PAGE, CORRECT, A THIRD AREA? >> YES. >> AND IT'S SET UP IN THE SAME FORMAT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> NEXT TO TYPE COLON, WHAT'S THERE? >> CASHED. >> NEXT TO INDEX TYPE COLON, WHAT'S THERE? >> CASH. >> NEXT TO LAST VISITED, WHAT IS THERE? >> 1-16-2006, 12:54:45. >> NOW, NEXT TO SERVER MODIFIED, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THAT AREA? >> NO. >> NEXT TO USER, WHAT'S THERE? >> NOTHING. >> OKAY. NEXT TO HISTORY FILE, THERE'S NOTHING THERE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> NEXT TO RESOURCE COLON, WHAT'S THERE? >> SEARCH BRACKET 10 BRACKET.HTM. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, SIR? >> THAT IS A FILE LOCATED ON THE COMPUTER. >> AND NEXT TO URL, WHAT'S THERE? >> IT'S THE WEBSITE THAT THAT FILE ORIGINATED FROM. IT'S HTTP://WWW.GOOGLE.COM//SEARCH. QUESTION MARK HL EQUALS EN & Q EQUALS PERCENTAGE 22. HOW PLUS TO PLUS KILL PLUS WITH PLUS A PLUS KNIFE PERCENTAGE 22. >> YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME I'D OFFER THIS DOCUMENT INTO EVIDENCE. >> IT MAY BE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AT THIS TIME. >>> LET'S NOT GET LOST IN ALL THAT COMPUTER EASE. WHAT THIS FORENSIC WITNESS IS TESTIFYING TO IS THAT ON THE ENTWISTLE'S HOME COMPUTER ON JANUARY 16th, 2006, JUST FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE MURDERS, THERE WAS A SEARCH DONE FOR HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE. TIME NOW TO TAKE OUR FIRST LOOK AT TODAY'S 13th JUROR QUESTION. WILL ENTWISTLE'S FRIENDS' TESTIMONY HELP THE PROSECUTION? THEY TESTIFIED YESTERDAY. JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON 13th JUROR TO CAST YOUR VOTE. LATER IN THE SHOW WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT HOW YOU'RE VOTING. STAY WITH US. >>> THE ANSWERS ARE IN THE DNA, BUT DOES IT PUT NEIL ENTWISTLE AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME? MORE LIVE TRIAL COVERAGE AHEAD. >>> WELCOME BACK. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAS PUT ON THE STAND A FORENSIC COMPUTER SPECIALIST WITH SOME VERY DAMAGING TESTIMONY AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE THAT ON THE FAMILY COMPUTER WAS FOUND A SEARCH, A GOOGLE SEARCH FOR HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE. THAT SEARCH DONE JUST FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE MURDERS. LET'S LISTEN IN. >> NOW, WHEN A SEARCH TERM IS USED ON GOOGLE, IN THIS CASE BASED ON YOUR INTERNET HISTORY, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE THAT YOU DOWN LOADED FROM THE EK WEE YUM, IS SOMETHING RETURNED FROM GOOGLE THAT IS BROUGHT INTO THAT COMPUTER? >> I PLACED TWO PAGES IN FRONT >> I PLACED TWO PAGES IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR. DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT THOSE ARE? >> YES, I DO. >> AND WHAT ARE THOSE? >> THIS IS A PRINTED VERSION OF THE FILE I LOCATED ON THE COMPUTER. >> WHEN YOU SAY A PRINTED VERSION OF THE FILE YOU LOCATED ON THE COMPUTER, WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN, SIR? >> THAT MEANS THAT I OPENED UP THE SEARCH BRACKET 10 BRACKET.HTM FILE ON MY FORENSIC WORKSTATION AND I PRINTED THE CONTENTS. >> OKAY. AND THAT CAME OFF THE ENCASE WRITE PROTECTED COPY YOU MADE OF THE ORIGINAL DRIVE FROM THE EXWEE UM. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY. >> THAT IS FAIR. >> AND YOU ACTUALLY PRINTED THAT DOCUMENT OFF? >> YES, I DID. >> AND IT'S REFLECTIVE OF THE SEARCH THAT WAS DONE IN THE DOCUMENT YOU JUST TESTIFIED ABOUT. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? >> YES. >> AT THIS TIME I'D ASK FOR THAT TO BE ENTERED AS AN EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR. >> DOES IT HAVE A NUMBER IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER? >> IT HAS THE DATE THAT I PRINTED IT IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT. >> I'LL HAVE -- MAY I SEE COUNSEL, PLEASE? >> ABSOLUTELY. IF I COULD RETRIEVE THE DOCUMENT JUST A MINUTE. >>> ALL RIGHT. PETER ELIKANN IS WITH US OUTSIDE THE WOBURN COURTHOUSE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY. WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THIS, THE GOOGLE SEARCH HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE? >> YOU KNOW, I HATE IT WHEN YOU ASK ME QUESTIONS LIKE THIS. BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO BREAK INTO A TAP DANCE AND BREAK INTO A SONG AT THIS POINT IN FRONT OF THE JURY AT THIS POINT. IT'S SO DIFFICULT. AGAIN, ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUAL BITS OF EVIDENCE THEY HAVE, I COULD PROBABLY COME UP WITH SOME EXCUSE FOR IT ABOUT HOW -- >> HOW ABOUT THIS ONE? >> JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING DOESN'T MEAN YOU'VE ACTUALLY DONE THE KILLING OR HE NEVER KILLED WITH A KNIFE OR WHATEVER. THE SHEER VOLUME OF THE EVIDENCE, THE EVERYTHING HITTING ME FROM EVERY SINGLE DIRECTION, THERE'S SO MUCH OF IT. I'VE GOT AN EXCUSE FOR THE STORY. I CAN EXPLAIN AWAY THE DNA, WHY SOMEBODY MAY HAVE GOTTEN UPSET AND RAN BACK TO THE BUZ M OF THEIR FAMILY BECAUSE THEY WERE SO DISTRAUGHT, BUT THE SHEER VOLUME JUST OVERWHELMS ME. AT SOME POINT I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY. >> I FEEL LIKE A LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR HERE. CALLING ON SOMEONE WITH A QUESTION THAT'S REALLY UNANSWERABLE TO TAKE ME BACK TO MY DAYS, MY FIRST FIRST DAY OF MY VERY FIRST CLASS IN LAW SCHOOL. I WAS THE FIRST PERSON CALLED ON. I WANTED TO JUST CRAWL UNDER MY SEAT. YOU KNOW, PETER, THAT WAS A LOT OF TALKING, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. WHAT ON EARTH CAN A DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAY TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A GOOGLE SEARCH DONE ON THE COMPUTER FOUR DAYS BEFORE, HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT CAN BE SAID. I SUPPOSE I COULD SAY THIS. I COULD SAY, LOOK, JUST BECAUSE YOU EITHER LIKE TO LOOK AT PORNOGRAPHY OR YOU'RE CURIOUS ABOUT ALL KINDS OF THINGS DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU ACTUALLY ARE THE MURDER. >> PORNOGRAPHY? >> IT CERTAINLY LOOKS BAD. YOU CAN SEE HE DIDN'T KILL WITH A KNIFE. HE DIDN'T HAVE THE GUTS TO GO UP AND DO THAT TO THEM. SO THIS REALLY IS NOT REALLY THE PERFECT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE'S A MURDER JUST BECAUSE HE WAS OUT OF CURIOSITY LOOKING AT ALL THESE KINDS OF THINGS. HAVING SAID THAT, THOUGH, IT'S A PROBLEM. >> PETER, WE HAVE ANOTHER CASE WE FOLLOWED HERE ON INCEST HERE RECENTLY, MARK AND JULIE JENSEN. SIMILARLY ON THAT COMPUTER THERE WERE SEARCHES ON HOW TO KILL AND ARSENIC POISONING. THE ARGUMENT THE DEFENSE MADE WAS SHE DID THE SEARCHES. YOU CAN'T PROVE WHO DID THE SEARCHES AFTER ALL. WE CAN PROBABLY RULE OUT 9-MONTH-OLD BABY LILLIAN BUT THERE ARE TWO ADULTS IN THE HOME. THE ARGUMENT IN THAT CASE WAS THAT THE VICTIM DID IT. I DON'T SEE THAT IN THIS CASE. I DON'T SEE IN THIS CASE RACHEL ENTWISTLE IN BETWEEN CHANGING DIAPERS AND FEEDING THE BABY WAS GOING ONLINE AND RESEARCHING HOW TO KILL. >> I DON'T SEE THAT EITHER. WE'RE ALL CURIOUS ABOUT ALSO, PERHAPS WHEN THE DEFENSE COMES ON WE'LL HEAR MORE OF IT, BUT AS FAR AS LOOKING UP PORNOGRAPHY OR ANY OF THESE INTERNET BUSINESSES OR SEEDY BUSINESSES SET UP, ARE THEY GOING TO SAY SHE HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THAT? THAT SHE ALSO WAS KIND OF HIS BUSINESS PARTNER, DID THINGS LIKE THAT? AGAIN, YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO SEE IF THEY TRY AND BRING HER INTO A LOT OF THIS INTERNET STUFF. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE THING ON HOW TO KNIFE SOMEBODY. >> EVERY TIME I ASK YOU ABOUT IT YOU TALK ABOUT PORNOGRAPHY AND THE BUSINESS STUFF. LIKE A VERY SKILLED DEFENSE ATTORNEY THAT YOU ARE. DR. SIMMERING, LET ME BRING YOU IN. IF, INDEED, IT WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE ONLINE FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE MURDERS RESEARCHING HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE, WE KNOW THAT THE MURDERS WERE DONE WITH A GUN, NOT WITH A KNIFE WHAB DO YOU THINK WAS GOING THROUGH HIS MIND DURING THIS TIME PERIOD? >> I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. IT'S AN ODD THING. I'VE SEEN A LOT OF KNIFE KILLER. I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYONE CHECK OUT HOW YOU KILL WITH A LIFE. IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS. YOU STAB THEM. >> IT'S NOT THAT OBVIOUS. YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT PART OF THE BODY. ACTUALLY, IT'S FAIRLY DIFFICULT TO KILL SOMEBODY WITH A KNIFE. YOU HAVE TO HIT -- I DON'T WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE A BLUEPRINT BUT I'VE WATCHED ENOUGH OF THESE CASES YOU HAVE TO HIT THE RIGHT ARTERY WITH THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF FORCE. BUT IT MAKES SOME SENSE. IT SURELY SHOWS NEIL ENTWISTLE'S STATE OF MIND THAT HE WAS PLOTTING THIS THING OUT AT LEAST FOUR DAYS BEFORE. YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE DR. SIMILARRING, HE HAD TO GO OVER TO THE MATTERAZZOS AND GET THE GUN THAT WAS ULTIMATELY USED IN THE MURDERS IF, IN FACT, HE'S THE KILLER. HE HAD TO GO OVER THERE, GET THE GUN, BRING IT HOME, HIDE IT FOR A PERIOD OF DAYS. I MEAN, IF, INDEED, HE IS THE KILLER, THIS THING WAS VERY SERIOUSLY PREMEDITATED. >> HE IS A VERY STRANGE BIRD FROM WHAT'S COMING ACROSS HERE. I'M SURPRISED THAT THEY HAVE NOT ASKED FOR STRIK EVALUATION. I'M NOT SAYING THERE'S A PSYCHIATRIC DEFENSE HERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. BUT THERE ARE SO MANY OPEN QUESTIONS. I AGREE. THINGS LOOK HORRIBLE FOR HIM. IT'S VERY HARD TO EXPLAIN THIS MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. BUT THE PROBLEM IS THEY'RE NOT OFFERING ANY OTHER EXPLANATION. I THINK DEFENSE IN TRYING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS POLICE INVESTIGATION PROBLEM AND THIS ONE, SORT OF MISSES THE POINT. I THINK THEY REALLY NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HIM, TO TRY TO DEVELOP SOME KIND OF RATIONAL DEFENSE, WHICH THEY DON'T HAVE YET. >> THAT HOW TO KILL GOOGLE SEARCH FOUR DAYS BEFORE, THAT'S A TOUGH ONE TO RESPOND TO. BUT WE ARE ONLY IN THE PROSECUTION CASE, FOLKING, AND ONLY REALLY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROSECUTION CASE. WE CAN'T JUMP TO ANY CONCLUSIONS. WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE DEFENSE YET AND NEIL ENTWISTLE IS PRESUMED INNOCENT. WE'RE TALKING A SHORT BREAK. YOU CAN TAKE A MOMENT TO WRITE TO US AND ANSWER OUR QUESTION, IS THE DNA CONCLUSIVE IN THIS TRIAL. E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT OPENCOURT@CNN.COM. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> THEN HE SAID HE WENT UPSTAIRS AND HE WENT UPSTAIRS AND HE FOUND RACHEL AND LILLY SHOT. >> DID HE DESCRIBE IT IN A PARTICULAR WAY? >> NO. THAT'S ALL HE SAID. AND HE SAID, BUT IT WAS JUST A BIG MESS. >> NEIL ENTWISTLE SAYS HE FOUND HIS WIFE AND BABY MURDERED IN THEIR HOME. BUT NOW HE'S THE ONE CHARGED WITH THE BRUTAL CRIME. WELCOME BACK TO "OPEN COURT." I AM LEE ZA BLOOM. RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND HER 9-MONTH-OLD BABY LILLIAN WERE SHOT TO DEATH IN JANUARY 2006. PROSECUTORS SAY RACHEL'S OWN HUSBAND IS THE KILLER. NEIL ENTWISTLE IS NOW ON TRIAL IN A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM. HE FACES LIFE IN PRISON IF CONVICTED OF THE DOUBLE MURDERS. YESTERDAY STATE POLICE CHEMIST LAURA BRYANT TESTIFIED TO EXPLAIN THE DNA EVIDENCE ADMITTED INTO THIS CASE. LET'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT WHAT SHE TOLD THE JURY. BRYANT SAID SHE TOOK SWABS FROM THE GUN'S HANDLE AND TESTED THEM FOR THE PRESENCE OF DNA. SHE WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT THE MAJOR DNA PROFILE ON THE HANDLE MATCHED THAT OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. BRYANT ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS A MIXTURE OF AT LEAST TWO INDIVIDUALS' DNA FOUND ON THE BARREL OF THE GUN. TESTS SHOWED THE MAJOR DNA PROFILE BELONGED TO RACHEL ENTWISTLE. THEN THERE'S THE DNA FOUND ON THE GUN CASE. BRYANT TESTIFIED THAT THE DNA FOUND THERE WAS A MIXTURE OF AT LEAST THREE PEOPLE. NEIL ENTWISTLE AND JOE MATTERAZZO WERE TWO OF THE POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTORS. THE TRIGGER LOCK ON THE GUN WAS ALSO TESTED FOR DNA. BRYANT SAID THERE WAS A MIXTURE OF TWO DNA PROFILES. THE RESULTS RETURNED NEIL ENTWISTLE AS A SOURCE OF THE MAJOR DNA PROFILE. DNA FOUND ON THE ALUMINUM CAN HAD A MIXTURE OF MORE THAN ONE SOURCE AS WELL. AFTER TESTING SHE FOUND THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE MATCHED THE MAJOR PROFILE FROM THAT MIXTURE. FINALLY, PROSECUTORS ASKED BRYANT ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY OF HER FINDINGS. AND SHE SAID THE PROBABILITY OF A RANDOM PERSON'S DNA MATCHING THE PROFILE ON THE GUN HANDLE WOULD BE, GET THIS, ONE IN 5.299 TRILLION OF THE CAUCASIAN POPULATION. AND GIVEN THAT THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF PLANET EARTH IS ONLY 7 TO 8 BILLION, I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY HIGH STATE OF RELIABILITY. PETER ELIKANN, ON THE DEFENSE SIDE, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT EASIER QUESTION, I THINK, THAT WE KNOW THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S DNA IS ALL OVER THE GUN, TRIGGER LOCK AND GUN CASE. HOWEVER, WE KNOW HE ALSO WENT TARGET SHOOTING, TOUCHED THE GUN AND GUN CASE ON THAT OCCASION, RIGHT? >> RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I THINK THE DNA, WHILE IT'S STRONG EVIDENCE, IS NOT THE -- IT DOESN'T ABSOLUTELY NAIL HIM. IT'S NOT THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE. IF THAT WAS THE ONLY THING THEY HAD AGAINST HIM AND THERE WAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE AT ALL THEN I COULD REALLY PLAY UP THE IDEA OF, YES, OF COURSE THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, HE WAS TARGET SHOOTING, USED IT IN THE PAST. SO DID OTHER PEOPLE. LOTS OF PEOPLE'S DNA, FINGERPRINTS ET CETERA IS ON THAT. THEREFORE, SURE HE'S A SUSPECT BUT IT DOESN'T QUITE NAIL HIM. BUT IT'S JUST SORT OF THAT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE, THOUGH, YOU START TO GET BURIED BY ALL THESE OTHER -- >> I THOUGHT I'D GIVE YOU ONE EASY ONE THERE ON THE DEFENSE SIDE IN THIS CASE. LET'S GO BACK INTO THE COURTROOM NOW. ON THE STAND LIVE IS A COMPUTER FORENSIC SPECIALIST OFFICER LAWRENCE JAMES TALKING ABOUT THE GOOGLE SEARCHES. LET'S LISTEN IN. >> WHAT HAS THE DESCRIPTION UNDER G 4 TV.COM. >> THE DESCRIPTION IS A G 4 FORUMS DASH HOW TO KILL SOMEONE WITH A KNIFE. >> MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR? SIR, I'M PLACING BEFORE YOU A DOCUMENT. DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT THAT DOCUMENT IS? >> YES, I DO. >> WHAT HAS THAT DOCUMENT? >> THIS IS A PRINTED COPY OF A DOCUMENT THAT I RETRIEVED FROM THE FORENSIC IMAGE I MADE OF THE LAB TOP HARD DRIVE. >> AND DOES IT RELATE TO THAT GOOGLE SEARCH -- >> YES, IT DOES. >> AND HOW DOES IT RELATE TO THE GOOGLE SEARCH? >> THIS WAS ONE OF THE RESOURCES IN THAT GOOGLE SEARCH THAT YOU COULD CLICK ON TO GET TO WHAT WAS LISTED. >> AND BASED ON YOUR FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF THE DRIVE AND THE INTERNET HISTORY THAT YOU PRINTED OUT, WAS THAT IMAGE CLICKED ON? >> THE LINK? >> YES. >> YES. TO THIS DOCUMENT, YES, IT WAS CLICKED ON. >> ONCE THAT LINK HAD BEEN CLICKED ON, WHAT DID THE GOOGLE SYSTEM, THE COMPUTER, AND THE INTERNET ACTUALLY DO? >> THE BROWSER ITSELF WENT TO THE WEBSITE, TOOK THE CONTENT AND STORED A LOCAL CASHED COPY. WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE MESSAGE VIEW BRACKET 2, PRAK ET.HTM WHICH IS THE FILE. STORED THAT LOCALLY. AN ENTRY WAS MADE IN THE INTERNET HISTORY IN THE INDEX DAT FILES. ONCE THIS FILE WAS CREATED ON THE HARD DRIVE, THE OPERATING SYSTEM ITSELF APPLIED DATE AND TIME STAMPS RELATIVE TO ITS CREATION, LAST WRITTEN AND MODIFIED DATES AND TIMES. >> WOULD THAT IMAGE APPEAR ON THE COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF THE USER, WHOEVER IT WAS? >> YES. >> YOUR HONOR, I'D OFFER THIS AS AN EXHIBIT. >> SUBJECT TO THE RULINGS AND OBJECTIONS AT THE SIDE BAR, THE DOCUMENT MAY BE MARKED. >> EXHIBIT 85 MARKED. >> MAY I DISPLAY IT TO THE JURY, YOUR HONOR? >> YES. >> MR. JAMES, WITH REGARDS TO THIS, HOW WOULD THIS APPEAR ON THE COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF THE USER? >> THE LAYOUT WOULD POSSIBLY BE DIFFERENT, DEPENDING ON RESOLUTION AND SCREEN SIZE. THE BLOCK TYPE OF IMAGES AND INFORMATION THAT'S INCOMPLETE AT THE TOP WOULD HAVE BEEN FILLED IN WITH WHATEVER WAS THERE. AND -- BECAUSE THOSE RESOURCES EXIST OUTSIDE OF THAT DOCUMENT. AND YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE THE PRINTING INFORMATION ON THE BOTTOM AND THE DATE THAT I PRINTED IT. >> AND, SIR, YOU'RE TALKING NOW ABOUT THIS LINE, FOR THE RECORD, THE BOTTOM LINE ON THE MESSAGE VIEW, CORRECT? >> RIGHT, YES. >> WITH THE JUDGE'S PERMISSION, IF I COULD HAVE THE WITNESS APPROACH THAT? >> YES. >> OKAY. WILL YOU APPROACH? NOW, SIR, THE NARRATIVE BELOW THE PICTURE, HOW WOULD THAT APPEAR TO THE USER AT THE SCREEN? >> IT SHOULD APPEAR EXACTLY THE WAY IT IS ON THE DISPLAY RIGHT THERE. >> SIR, YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR VOICE UP, PLEASE. >> THAT WOULD APPEAR AS IT DOES IN THIS PRINTOUT IN FRONT OF US. >> AND WITH A LOUD CLEAR VOICE CAN YOU PLEASE STATE WHAT THAT ACTUALLY SAYS? >> YES. SO YOU MAY BE THINKING, WHY GO FOR THE AORTA? WHY NOT THE HEART? BECAUSE THERE ISN'T THE -- THIS ISN'T THE MOVIES AND IT'S TO STAB -- IT'S A LITTLE BLURRY. AND IT'S TO STAB THROUGH A HUMAN RIB CASE. SO IF YOU EVER GET A CLEAR SHOT AT THE TORSO, YOU BEST TO STAB THEM IN IT JUST BELOW THE RIB CAGE. ALL THE OTHER STRIKE POINTS ARE PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY. SO THERE YOU HAVE IT. I HOPE AN INFORMATIVE BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY, AN ENTERTAINING THREAD. >>> SIR, WHEN YOU DID THE -- WHEN YOU USED A NET ANALYSIS TOOL TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRE UNALLOCATED AND ALLOCATED DRIVE, WHAT DID IT ACTUALLY DO? >> THAT ANALYSIS, WHEN I USED A FEATURE OF THAT ANALYSIS IS CALLED THE DELETED HISTORY EXTRACTOR. WHAT IT ALLOWS ME TO DO IS TO TREAT THE EVIDENCE FILES AS A RAW DISK WITH NO PARTITIONS, NO VOLUME LETTERS, NO C DRIVE, NO D DRIVE. WHAT IT WILL THEN DO IS IT WILL GO IN AND IT WILL SEARCH SECTOR BY SECTOR THE ENTIRE IMAGE FILE THAT I HAVE FOR WHAT IT KNOWS TO BE INTERNET HISTORY RECORDS. THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC STRUCTURE. SO IT KNOWS WHAT TO LOOK FOR. ONCE IT DOES THAT AND IT FINDS RECORDS, IT THEN RETRIEVES THEM AND ADDS THEM TO ITS OWN INDEX DAT FILES. >> NOW, DOES IT -- ARE THOSE RECORDS DATE STAMPED AND TIME STAMPED? >> YES, THEY ARE. >> AND DO THEY HAVE ON THOSE RECORDS WHERE THE BROWSER DOWNLOADED CERTAIN INFORMATION INTO THE COMPUTER AT A CERTAIN TIME AND DATE? >> YES, IT DOES. >> IF I MAY APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR? >> YES. >> SIR, I'M PLACING BEFORE YOU SOME DOCUMENTS. DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT THOSE ARE? >> YES, I DO. >> AND WHAT ARE THEY? >> THESE ARE MORE PRINTOUTS OF INTERNET HISTORY RECORDS THAT I RETRIEVED USING THAT ANALYSIS FROM THE DATA ACQUIRED FROM THE TOSHIBA LAPTOP. >> NOW, LOOKING AT THE LAST PAGE IN THAT DOCUMENT, DOES IT INDICATE A TIME VISITED? >> YES. >> WHAT IS THE TIME VISITED? >> THE DATE AND TIME VISITED IS 1-16-2006, 1145:49. >> WHAT'S THE PAGE NUMBER ON THERE, SIR? >> 3595. >> DOES IT INDICATE A USER? >> NO, IT DOESN'T. >> O A. ON ANY OF THE THREE BOXES, SIR? >> ON THE LAST PAGE? >> YES. >> THE TOP RECORD HAS A USER. >> OKAY. WHO IS THE USER ON THE LAST PAGE. >> ENT. >> WHAT URL IS BEING VISITED. >> HTTP://WWW.ADULTFRIENDFINDER.COM . >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR IN YOUR TRAINING EXPERIENCE AND YOUR WORK AS A FORENSICS ANALYSIS OF COMPUTER DATA ABOUT WHAT ADULT FRIEND FINDER IS? >> YES. >> WHAT IS IT. >> IT'S A NET WORKING SITE WHERE USERS CAN SIGN UP AND MEET EACH OTHER. >> THE FIRST PAGE, SIR, WHAT'S THE NUMBER ON THAT. >> 3582. >> AND DOES THAT HAVE A DATE AND TIME STAMP? >> THE TOP RECORD, YES. >> AND WHAT'S THAT? >> 1-16-2006, 1146:22. >> AND DOES THAT HAVE A USER NAME ON IT, SIR? >> YES, IT DOES. >> WHAT'S THAT? >> ENT. >> WHAT'S THE URL ON THAT ONE? >> HTTP://GRAPHICSADULTFRIENDFINDER .COM//FFADULT/BETA 2/BAY 25 F UNDERSCORE AIR ROW UNDERSCORE ORANGE S.GIF. >>> WELCOME BACK. WE ARE GETTING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT COMPUTER SEARCHES DONE FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE KILLINGS ON THE ENTWISTLE LAPTOP. DR. STEVEN SIMRING, LET ME BRING WROU IN. WE NOW KNOW THERE WAS A SEARCH ON THE ADULT FRIEND FINDER WEBSITE. THEN AFTER THAT THE GOOGLE SEARCH OF HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE. NOW, YOU MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH ADULT FRIEND FINDER.COM. I WASN'T PARTICULARLY FAMILIAR WITH IT. I THOUGHT, LOOK, MAYBE IT'S KIND OF A TAME SITE LIKE FRIEND STER, MYSPACE. NOT SO. IT'S A VERY SEXUALLY EXPLICIT WEBSITE. IT BUILDS ITSELF AS THE WORLD'S LARGEST SEX AND SWINGER WEBSITE CLEARLY FOR PEOPLE LOOKING FOR SEXUAL PARTNERS AND SEXUAL PARTNERS IMMEDIATELY. PUTTING THAT TOGETHER WITH THAT WAS DONE FIRST THEN THE SEARCH WITH HOW TO KILL, WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? >> THIS IS A VERY STRANGE MAN. I MEAN, YOU COULD SAY SUPERFICIALLY HE'S UP TO NO GOOD. CERTAINLY IT COULD DO ALL THIS AND THEN COME ACROSS YOUR DEAD WIFE AND CHILD AND FLEE TO ENGLAND, ALL OF THIS REALLY LOOKS HORRIBLE. AND YET THERE IS SOMETHING THAT I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS CASE. DEFENSE HAD JUST BETTER GET THEIR STORY TOGETHER. YOU SAID, LISA, THERE'S NO STORY. THERE'S ALWAYS A STORY. THEY'VE GOT TO COME UP WITH SOME EXPLANATION. BECAUSE ALTHOUGH IN THE LAW YOU'RE TOLD YOU'RE PRESUMED INNOCENT TILL FOUND GUILTY, THAT JUST ISN'T TRUE. IN A CASE LIKE THIS, HE HAS GOT TO COME UP WITH SOME EXPLANATION FOR THIS BEHAVIOR. I DON'T SEE WHAT IT IS. I ALSO DON'T SEE WHY THEY'RE PUTTING ALL THIS TESTIMONY ON ABOUT ALL THESE AMPER SANDS AND ALL THIS STUFF. THEY'RE JUST BORING THE JURY TO DEATH WITH THIS STUFF. >> JUST GET TO THE POINT. I GUESS FOR THE SAKE OF THOROUGHNESS AND COMPLETENESS. THE ATTORNEYS AND THE DEFENDANT ARE AT A SIDE BAR. YOU'RE IN THE MISSING LIVE TESTIMONY. WHEN THEY RESUME WE'LL GET YOU BACK IN THERE TO HEAR THE AMPER SANDS FOR YOURSELF. PETER ELIKANN, IF THE DEFENSE WAS TO TRY TO CLAIM MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE WAS ON THE COMPUTER, RACHEL WAS ON THE COMPUTER, IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE SHE WAS ON THE COMPUTER AT ADULT FRIEND FINDER.COM WHICH SAYS IN ITS ADVERTISING MEET REAL SEX PARTNERS TONIGHT, WORLD'S LARGEST SEX AND SWINGER SITE. THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE RACHEL ENTWIST ENTWISTLE. >> EVERYTHING WE'VE HEARD IT DOESN'T. YET IT DOESN'T QUITE SOUND LIKE HIM EITHER EVERYTHING WE'VE HEARD PREVIOUSLY GL THAT'S TRUE. >> THIS REALLY GREAT RELATIONSHIP. NOBODY COULD FIND A CHING IN THE ARMOR HERE. EVERYBODY ABOUT IT SEEMS LIKE OUT OF LEFT FIELD. I AGREE WITH THIS WHOLE THING DOESN'T -- DIDN'T SEEM TO MAKE ANY SENSE. THERE'S NO LOGICAL, RATIONAL SOLUTION. WE RAELS WHEN MURDERS HAPPEN IT OFFICE OFTEN ISN'T ANYTHING LOGICAL OR RATIONAL. >> DR. SIMRING, MAYBE WE COULD SAY HE NEVER CHEATED ON HER. NO GIRLFRIEND, AFFAIR OR PROSTITUTE THAT'S COME TO LIGHT. LOOK, HE'S JUST A GUY ON THE INTERNET AT NIGHT. HE'S A FAMILY GUY BUT HE DID LOOK AT SOME OF THESE ESCORT SITES FOR A LITTLE ITLATION. MAYBE HE SAW SOME KIND OF TV SHOW OR MOVIE AND WAS CURIOUS ABOUT HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE. AND AFTER ALL, THESE VICTIMS WERE KILLED WITH A GUN. >> SURE. CERTAINLY AS YOU SAID, IT DOESN'T -- HE LOOKS GUILTY. HE'S ALKTING LIKE A GUILTY PERSON. ALL THIS STUFF IS REALLY SLEAZE AND SLIME AND DOESN'T LOOK GOOD FOR HIM. I AGREE WITH OTHER GUEST THAT IT JUST DOESN'T ADD UP. THE PROSECUTION THEORETICALLY HAS TO COME UP WITH A MOTIVE AND EVERYTHING BUT THEY DON'T. HE'S GOT TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF OUT OF THIS. I'M SURPRISED THEY HAVEN'T HAD HIM PSYCHIATRICALLY EVALUATED. THOUGH THERE'S NO EVIDENCE UP FRONT HE'S MENTALLY ILL, THEY NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT REALLY IS GOING ON. WHAT IS HIS EXPLANATION FOR ALL THIS STUFF? IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOMEBODY ELSE DID IT. IT'S UNLIKELY HIS WIFE DID THIS. BUT WHO KNOWS. I ALSO DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY DRUGS OR ALCOHOL INVOLVED HERE. IF HE WAS DRUNK DURING ANY OF THIS. THERE ARE JUST SIMPLY TOO MANY GAPS. I FEEL THAT IF THEY DON'T FILL IN THE GAPS HE'S JUST GOING TO GO DOWN THE LONG ROAD AND BE CONVICTED. >> ON THE OTHER HAND, PETER ELIKANN, THERE IS A STRIKING SIMILARITY I JUST NOTICED FROM WHAT ONE OF THOSE GOOGLE SEARCHES REVEALED, BY THE WAY THE COURT'S ON A TEN-MINUTE RECESS NOW. YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SHOT OF NEIL ENTWISTLE THERE IN THE COURTROOM AS THE JURY FULL-TIMES OUT FOR THAT BRIEF MID-MORNING RECESS. PETER, THE HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE SEARCH YIELDED A DIAGRAM WHICH THE JURY JUST SAW. AND WHATEVER WEBSITE THAT WAS THAT HAD THE DIAGRAM EXPLAINING HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE INDICATED THAT STABBING THE AORTA JUST BELOW THE RIBS WAS THE BEST PLACE TO DO IT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NOTICED THAT. BUT BABY LILLIAN WAS SHOT IN THE CHEST. IT WAS A GUNSHOT WOUND TO THE HES. DO YOU THINK THAT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE? >> PERHAPS. PERHAPS NOT. YOU'VE REALLY GOT ME IN THE HOT SEAT ON THIS BUSINESS, LISA. YOU KEEP HITTING ME WITH THIS BUSINESS ABOUT HOW DO I GET AROUND THIS VIDEO? >> COME ON, YOU'RE A TRAINED LAWYER. >> I JUST KEEP SKIRMING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET AROUND THE VIDEO. CLEARLY IF I WAS THE ATTORNEY ON THIS CASE I'D HAVE NVT TORS. I'D BE ASKING MY CLIENT, MAYBE HE'S GOT SOME LOGICAL REASON ON WHY HE'S DOING THIS. AGAIN, IT'S SUCH A TOUGH BIT OF EVIDENCE. WE CAN COME UP WITH AN EXPLANATION, OUT OF CURIOSITY HE CAN GOOGLE AND LOOK AT THIS AND LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, PORNOGRAPHY OR ADULT FINDERS. NOTHING THAT HE'D EVER ACT ON. I CAN SAY THAT BUT JUST WITH ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE IT JUST KIND OF FITS INTO PLACE SO FEHRFECTLY. SO I REALLY -- AGAIN, I'M SQUIRMING AGAIN WITH THAT QUESTION. I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT MY DEFENSE ANSWER WOULD BE TO THAT OTHER THAN TO COME UP WITH WHAT I'VE JUST SAID. IT COULD JUST BE MERE CURIOSITY. >> I'VE GOT A LOT OF INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY. I GOOGLE THINGS ALL THE TIME BECAUSE I'M KIND OF CURIOUS. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER GOOGLED HOW TO KILL SOMEONE. ON A MORE SERIOUS NOTE, THERE'S A LOT OF EVIDENCE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE. EVEN CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS LIKE YOU HAVE A HARD TIME COMING UP WITH EXPLANATIONS FOR SOME OF HIS BEHAVIOR THAT'S VERY INCRIMINATING. IF YOU HAD BEEN REPRESENTING HIM WOULD YOU BE LOOKING FOR SOME KIND OF PLEA DEAL HERE? >> I ABSOLUTELY WOULD. I HAVE A FEELING THERE WAS NEVER ANY PLEA DEAL OFFERED. OBVIOUSLY IN MASSACHUSETTS FIRST DEGREE MURDER IS LIFE WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. IF HE'S KWIGTED HE'LL BE SITTING IN HERE WHEN HE'S 80, 85 AND THERE'S NO WAY OF GETTING OUT EARLY EVER. THAT'S A PROBLEM. YES, I'D BE LOOKING FOR A PLEA DEAL. I HAVE A FEELING THE PROSECUTION HERE MIGHT HAVE JUST THOUGHT THIS IS A -- WE CAN'T LOSE THIS CASE. IT'S SUCH AN EXTREMELY STRONG CASE THE PUBLIC WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY OUT RAGED AND HORRIFIED IF YOU WORKED OUT SOME KIND OF DEAL LESS THAN LIFE WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. I HAVE THE FEELING THE PROSECUTION DIDN'T WANT TO OFFER SUCH A DEAL BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FIGURE THEY HAD TO. THEY HAD A GUARANTEED WINNER. AND SO I THINK IT JUST PROBABLY DIDN'T MATERIALIZE. I WOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THAT FROM VERY EARLY ON. >> YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN POUNDING ON THE DOOR. I CAN IMAGINE THE PROSECUTORS. WE HAVE HIS DNA ON THE GUN, HER DNA ON THE GUN, HIS INTERNET SEARCH HOW TO KILL FOUR DAYS BEFORE, HIM FLEEING AND NOT CALLING THE POLICE, HIM MAKING A NUMBER OF INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO OFFER A PLEA DEAL. I THINK WE'LL TRY THIS CASE. I THINK THAT WAS THE PROSECUTORS' A ATTITUDE FROM THE BEGINNING. WE'LL BE BACK WITH MORE LIVE TRIAL COVERAGE FROM MASSACHUSETTS. STAY WITH US. >>> WILL ENTWISTLE'S FRIENDS' TESTIMONY HELP THE PROSECUTION? THAT'S TODAY'S 13th JUROR QUESTION. LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON 13th JUROR TO VOTE. SO FAR 73% OF YOU LIKED THAT TESTIMONY. 27% OF YOU, REASONABLE DOUBTERS. WE'LL BE UPDATING THE 13th JUROR RESULTS THROUGHOUT THE DAY. TO HELP YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND WHILE THE COURT IS ON A BREAK B I WANT TO SHOW YOU ONE OF THOSE FRIEND'S TESTIMONY FROM YESTERDAY YOU HAVE NOT YET SEEN. WHAT WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE DOING IN ENGLAND DURING THAT TIME PERIOD IN BETWEEN THE MURDERS AND HIS APPREHENSION? WELL, THIS WITNESS HELPED EK PLAIN THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. HIS NAME IS DASHIEL MUNDING. LET'S TAKE A LOOK. >> WHEN YOU MET HIM THERE, WHAT DID YOU DO? >> WELL, I GREETED HIM. I GAVE HIM A LIFT BACK TO MY PLACE IN NOTTINGHAM ON THE BACK OF MY MOTORBIKE. I THINK WE PROBABLY SAT AND HAD SOME DINNER. >> OVER THE NEXT COUPLE DAYS DID WROU SPEND SOME TIME WITH HIM? >> YES, I DID. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU SPENT SOME TIME WITH BENJAMIN PRIOR AS WELL? >> WE SPENT TIME TOGETHER, ALL THREE OF US. >> AND DO YOU RECALL OVER THE COURSE OF THAT TIME HAVING CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT ABOUT CERTAIN EVENTS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES? >> YES. >> AND TELL US WHAT YOU RECALL ABOUT THOSE CONVERSATIONS. >> COULD YOU PLEASE BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC? WOULD YOU LIKE A NARRATIVE OR -- >> DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT SOMETHING THAT -- INVOLVING RACHEL AND LILLIAN? >> YES. >> WHAT DID HE TELL YOU FIRST? >> HE TOLD ME THAT ON THE -- ON THE DAY THAT THEY WERE FOUND DEAD, HE HAD LEFT THE HOUSE EARLY, QUITE EARLY IN THE MORNING, LEAVING THEM ASLEEP, I THINK. >> DID HE SAY WHAT TIME HE WENT OUT? >> BEFORE 9:00. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE PRECISE TIME. >> DID HE TELL YOU WHERE HE WENT? >> HE SAID THAT HE WENT SHOPPING. I THINK HE MENTIONED THE STORE STAPLES. >> WHAT IF ANYTHING DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT HIS HOME OR THE CONDITION OF THE HOME WHEN HE LEFT IT? >> HE SAID THAT HE LEFT THE BACK DOOR UNLOCKED. >> AND WHAT DID HE SAY ABOUT WHEN HE WAS OUT SHOPPING? >> THAT HE DIDN'T PURCHASE ANYTHING. >> DID HE TELL YOU WHAT HE HAD OBSERVED WHEN HE HAD ARRIVED HOME? >> HE SAID THAT THE BACK DOOR WAS STILL UNLOCKED WHEN HE CAME BACK. AND THAT THERE WAS NOTHING DISTURBED PARTICULARLY IN THE HOUSE UNTIL HE WENT TO HIS BEDROOM WHERE HE FOUND RACHEL AND LILLIAN UNDER A BLANKET. >> DID HE SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD CONTACTED ANYBODY WHEN HE FOUND THEM? >> NOT WHEN HE FOUND THEM, HE DIDN'T -- HE DIDN'T SAY HE CONTACTED ANYBODY AT THE MOMENT THAT HE FOUND THEM, NO. >> WHAT DID HE TELL YOU NEXT? >> HE SAID THAT HE LEFT THE HOUSE. AND THAT HE WENT TO THE MATTERAZZOS' HOUSE. JOE AND PRISCILLA. THINKING THAT THAT WAS THE ONLY PLACE THAT HE KNEW THAT THERE MIGHT BE FIREARMS. >> AND DID HE TELL YOU WHY HE HAD GONE DOWN WILL FOR FIREARMS? >> YEAH. HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE SECURE AND THAT NOTHING WAS -- NOTHING WAS WRONG, NOTHING WAS MISSING. >> DID HE TELL YOU HOW HE FOUND THE MATTERAZZOS' HOME. >> HE SAID THAT IT WAS LOCKED AND NO ONE WAS HOME. >> AND NO ONE WAS THERE? >> YEAH. >> WHAT DID HE TELL YOU NEXT? >> FROM THERE HE SAID THAT HE WENT TO PRISCILLA'S OFFICE AND THAT HE MADE A TELEPHONE CALL AND SPOKE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE. >> YOU'RE NOT SURE WHICH AGENCY. >> I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE. >> DID HE SAY WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD ANY CONVERSATION WITH PRISCILLA OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY? >> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT HE DID. HE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY SO. >> WHAT DID HE TELL YOU HAPPENED NEXT? >> THAT HE LEFT THE OFFICE AND DROVE FOR SOME TIME. THAT HE FOUND HIMSELF AT THE AIRPORT AFTER DRIVING FOR A WHILE AND THAT HE WANTED TO -- THAT HE WANTED TO BE WITH HIS FAMILY. THAT HE WANTED SUPPORT FROM THEM. AND THAT HE BOOKED HIMSELF ON A FLIGHT IN THE EARLY MORNING, HAVING SPENT THE NIGHT IN THE CAR. >> AND WAS THIS THE EARLY MORNING AFTER HE TOLD YOU HE HAD FOUND RACHEL AND LILLIAN? >> THE MORNING FOLLOWING, YEAH. >> AND WHERE DID HE SAY HE FLEW? WHAT DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT THAT? >> HE FLEW TO -- FLEW TO LONDON, I BELIEVE. AND FROM THERE WENT TO HIS PARENTS' HOME. >> DID HE TELL YOU WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HE HAD DONE AT HOME? >> NOT THAT I RECALL. >> DO YOU RECALL ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT THE FUNERAL OR FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HE HAD DONE THAT DAY? >> ON THE DAY OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN'S FUNERAL, I THINK HE WENT TO -- HE TOLD ME THAT HE WENT TO THE PLACE WHERE HE HAD PROPOSED TO RACHEL. >> DID HE TELL YOU WHERE THAT PLACE WAS? >> HE DID, BUT I DON'T RECALL. >> DO YOU RECALL ANYTHING FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT? >> THERE WAS FURTHER CONVERSATION. >>> THAT WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MATE DASHIEL MUNDING AS THEY WOULD SAY IN ENGLAND. HIS FRIEND WHO TESTIFIED AGAINST HIM YESTERDAY, GIVING THE DETAILS OF WHAT NEIL ENTWISTLE TOLD HIM WENT DOWN AFTER HE SAYS HE FOUND HIS WIFE AND BABY DEAD. PETER ELIKANN, ONE OF THE THINGS HE SAYS IS HE WENT BACK TO THE MATTERAZZOS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS SECURE. SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. HE FINDS HIS WIFE AND BABY DEAD. HE'S NOT CONCERNED ABOUT FINDING THE KILLERS. HE DOESN'T CALL THE POLICE. WHAT HE DOES IS HE GOES TO HIS INLAWS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR HOME IS SECURE. DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE? >> NOT REALLY. PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE FIRST THING, RATHER THAN DRIVE THERE I WOULD HAVE CALLED THEM INSTANTLY ON THE PHONE IF I WAS SO SECURE ABOUT THE SECURITY. EVERYTHING MOVED HEAVEN AND EFFORT. A MAJOR FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH THE ENTIRE CASE IS THE FACT THAT ANY LAWYER WOULD TELL ANYBODY, SHUT UP. DON'T TALK TO ANYBODY. HE'S GOT SO MANY VERSES OF THE STORY OUT TO ONE FRIEND AND ANOTHER FRIEND. AND MR. MATTERAZZO HE TELLS A STORY TO AND THE POLICE. THERE'S SO MUCH CONTRADICTION. IF HE HADN'T TALKED TO ANYBODY HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RUN AWAY TO ENGLAND AND COME UP WITH A BETTER VERSION. GEE, PEOPLE THROUGH MY INTERNET BUSINESSES WERE AFTER ME AND SO I FLED. NOW THAT I'M HERE IN ENGLAND SUDDENLY I'M HEARING MY FAMILY WAS MURDERED. THEY MUST HAVE GOT TO MY HOUSE. HE COULD HAVE COME UP WITH A BETTER VERSION IF HE WANTED TO MAKE ONE UP. THIS BUSINESS ABOUT LOCKING HIMSELF INTO SO MANY CONTRADICTORY VERSIONS IS A REAL PROBLEM. >> YOU CAN'T EXPECT A GUY WITH ALL OF HIS COMPUTER SAVVY, ALL OF HIS INTERNET BUSINESSES AND INTERNET SEARCHES TO BE FAMILIAR WITH HOW TO USE A PHONE. YOU KNOW, THOSE THINGS ARE VERY COMPLICATED. THEY'RE VERY DIFFICULT TO WORK. OF COURSE HE HAD TO JUMP IN THE CAR AND GO OVER THERE. YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS OBVIOUS TO ME AND PROSECUTORS ARE GOING TO ARGUE THAT EAST TRYING TO COVER HIS TRACKS. HE DID, IN FACT, GO OVER TO THE MATTERAZZOS. HE WENT OVER THERE TO RETURN TO GUN AND HE HAD TO CONCOCT A STORY IN CASE ANYONE SAW HIM OVER THERE THAT HE WENT OVER THERE TO CHECK ON THEM. IT REMINDS ME VERY MUCH OF THE SCOTT PETERSON CASE WHERE HE SAYS HE WENT FISHING IN THE BAY WHEN WE ALL KNOW NOW THAT HE'S A CONVICTED MURDER THAT HE WENT AND DUMPED THE BODIES IN THE BAY. HE HAD TO HAVE A COVER STORY AND I THINK SIMILARLY NEIL ENTWISTLE'S COVER STORY IS I WENT OVER TO THE MATTERAZZOS NOT TO RETURN THE MURDER WEAPON, BUT I WENT OVER THERE JUST, YOU KNOW, TO CHECK ON THEM. >> IT'S REALLY TOO BAD. NOW THIS IS WHAT REALLY HURTS WHEN WE KEEP ASKING THE QUESTION SHOULD HE TAKE THE STAND OR NOT. HE WOULD HAVE HAD A MUCH BETTER SHOT OF TAKING THE STAND IF HE HADN'T BEEN LOCKED INTO SO MANY DIFFERENT VERSIONS WHERE THEY COULD CATCH HIM IN CONTRADICTIONS. NOW I THINK THEY'D PROBABLY EAT HIM UP ALIVE IF HE TOOK THE STAND. OTHERWISE I'D SAY MAYBE HE HAD A GREAT EXPLANATION TO EVERYTHING AND TIE IT ALL IN. AT THIS POINT WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY HARD. >> ANOTHER TEENY TINY PROBLEM WITH HIS STORY IS THAT BOTH THE MATTERAZZOS WERE AT WORK. THEY WEREN'T AT HOME AS HE WELL KNEW WHEN HE WENT OVER THERE. HE LIVED WITH THEM FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS. HE WAS WELL AWARE OF THEIR HABITS. I WANT TO SHOW YOU AND OUR VIEWERS SOMETHING. WE HAVE A COPY OF A PART OF A LETTER THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WROTE TO HIS ATTORNEYS FROM PRISON. THE REASON WHY WE HAVE IT AND IT'S NOT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IS THE ATTORNEYS REVEALED THIS IN A MOTION AT ONE POINT DURING PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS. THEY WERE CONCERNED HE WAS SUICIDAL. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. NEIL ENTWISTLE WRITES, DEAR ELLIOTT AND STEPHANIE. I WISH TO BE CREMATED AND IF POSSIBLE HAVE MY ASHES SCATTERED ON RACHEL AND LILLIAN'S GRAVE. OTHER THAN THIS, I DO NOT CARE UNLESS MY PARENTS WANT HALF TO DO WITH AS THEY SEE FIT. ONE DAY MY MOOD WAS FINE. THEN IT STARTED TO DARKEN. IF YOU ARE READING THIS, THEN I GUESS IT GOT WORSE. I HAVE NO OTHER EXPLANATION. DO YOU THINK HE WAS SUICIDAL? >> HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN. WE, AGAIN, DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THIS. >> HE'S PLANNING FOR HIS OWN DEATH. HE'S TALKING ABOUT CREMATION. >> THERE'S A LOT OF DRAMA HERE. HE'S TALKING ABOUT CREMATION. HE GOES ON THIS WEBSITE ABOUT THE KNIFE. BY THE WAY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO STAB SOMEBODY YOU DON'T GO FOR THE AORTA. IT'S VERY HARD TO FIND THE AORTA. YOU SLIT THE NECK AND GO FOR THE KA ROT TID. >> OH, GOOD TO KNOW. >> THE AORTA, YOU GOT TO BE A SURGEON TO FIND THE AORTA. THAT'S KIND OF SILLINESS. I'M SURE I'M GOING TO BE IN A BIG MINORITY HERE, BUT UNLESS HE TAKES THE STAND HE'S GOING TO BE DEAD. HE CAN TAKE THE STAND AND SAY HE WAS DISTRAUGHT AND DESCRIBE THE WHOLE THING AS DISTRAUGHT AND HE WASN'T MAKING SENSE AND THINKING LOGICALLY. UNLESS HE CAN APPEAL TO THE JURY, ALL HE HAS TO DO IS GET ONE JUROR TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT DOUBT. IF THERE'S A MISTRIAL THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A PLEA BARGAIN. PROSECUTORS GET SOFTENED UP AFTER A MISTRIAL. >> THAT IS TRUE. DLCHLT SIMRING, WHAT ABOUT THIS PORTION OF THE LETTER? SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID THIS IS A SORT OF CONFESSION. HE SAYS ONE DAY MY MOOD WAS FINE. THEN IT STARTED TO DARKEN. DO YOU THINK THAT EXPLAINS THE KILLING ITSELF? >> IT'S CERTAINLY GIVES SOME INDICATION. IT'S THE FIRST THING THAT SAYS THAT I WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT IN MY REGULAR MIND. BUT I WAS GOING INTO SOME KIND OF MENTAL STATE THAT PERHAPS LED ME TO DO SOMETHING UNUSUAL. BUT THIS IS WHAT THEY CALL A PREGNANT NEGATIVE. THERE IT IS. WHAT IS THE MENTAL STATE? I MEAN, IT'S SOMETHING TO BE EXPLORED. AND IT LOOKS LIKE I'M PUSHING THE PSYCHIATRIC BUSINESS. >> NO. >> I DON'T THINK EVERY DEFENDANT NEEDS TO HAVE A PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION, BUT THIS GUY SURE DOES. >> I KNOW, OF COURSE, YOU HAVEN'T EVALUATED HIM AND YOU ONLY HAVE LIMITED INFORMATION. BUT FROM THE ALL THE TESTIMONY, HE WAS A GOOD GUY, A LOVING GUY, GENTLEMANLY, KIND TO HIS WIFE, KIND TO HIS DAUGHTER. THIS IS A PROSECUTION WITNESSES SAYING THIS. WE DON'T SEE WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER CASES, A GUY WHO WAS DISTANT AND COLD, ABUSIVE PRIOR TO THE MURDER. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S UNUSUAL FOR SOMEBODY TO START OUT WITH A MURDER. USUALLY THEY START OUT WITH A LOWER-LEVEL FORM OF ABUSE OR HUMILIATION. EVEN VERBAL. NONE OF THAT HERE. HOW COULD A GUY GO FROM BEING WHAT SEEMS LIKE BASICALLY A GOOD GUY TO BEING A KILLER, A DOUBLE KILLER, A KILLER OF A BABY? >> ABSOLUTELY. WITHOUT SOME KIND OF MENTAL STATE PROBLEM, HE MIGHT HAVE HAD A PSYCHOTIC DEPRESSION, PECULIAR BELIEFS. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ALCOHOL INVOLVED. THESE ARE ALL QUESTIONS TO BE RAISED. INSTEAD OF THAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH AMPERSANDS. >> EXACTLY. PETER ELIKANN, YOU AND I HAVE LOOKED AT A LOT OF HIGH PROFILE CASES. SCOTT PETERSON, YOU NAME IT. O.J. SIMPSON. THERE WAS ALWAYS SOME KIND OF HISTORY BEFOREHAND. AT LEAST A GIRLFRIEND, AS I SAID, SOME KIND OF VERBAL OR PHYSICAL ABUSE. DOES IT SURPRISE YOU THAT IT'S NOT PRESENT HERE? >> YEAH. THIS SEEMED TO SPRING OUT OF NOWHERE. AS YOU'VE BEEN SAYING, I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, USUALLY YOU SEE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A NASTINESS TO HIM. THAT HE AND HIS WIFE WERE BICKERING, HE WAS ABUSIVE, HE WOULD BELITTLE HER, HUMILIATE. A HAIR TRIGGER TEMPER. COWORKERS NEVER LIKED HIM. HE WAS A GRUMY, GROUCHY GUY THAT DIDN'T GET ALONG WITH THE RELATIVES. HERE IT'S NOTHING. WE DON'T EVEN SEE HIM WITH A GIRLFRIEND. WE SEE CURIOSITY ON THE INTERNET LOOKING AROUND LATE AT NIGHT. >> HIM AND A LOT OF GUYS, TON HONEST. >> IT'S BECOME A NATIONAL HOBBY, I GUESS. WE SEE THIS ALLOT. THERE'S JUST NOTHING. I'M LOOKING FOR THE TRIGGERS, THE HINTS. SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A PRELUDE TO THIS. IT'S JUST NOT THERE. WE DON'T SEE ANY KIND OF MOTIVE OTHER THAN HE HAD SOME DEBTS. >> WELL, IT WAS MORE THAN JUST SOME -- SOME DEBTS. IT WAS A LITTLE WORSE THAN THAT. HE WAS REALLY IN OVER HIS HEAD. HE HAD TOLD RACHEL HE WAS MAKING ABOUT 10 GRAND A MONTH FROM THIS SECRET BRITISH SPY SERVICE WHICH WAS CLEARLY A LIE. THEY GOT IN OVER THEIR HEADS WITH THIS 2,700 A MONTH HOUSE. A BMW. HE DIDN'T HAVE A DIME. THIS WAS ALL ON CREDIT. THEN EBAY CUSTOMERS START TURNING AGAINST HIM AND FILING COMPLAINTS. I THINK HE HAD TO REVEAL HIMSELF TO HER THAT HE WAS REALLY A FRAUD. HE WASN'T THIS GREAT PROVIDER, EARNER. THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE HAD TO GIVE THE CAR BACK, LEAVE THE HOME, MOVE BACK IN WITH THE MATTERAZZOS. IT COULD HAVE BEEN HUMILIATING. THAT'S WORSE THAN A LITTLE DEBT, ISN'T IT, PETER? >> ACTUALLY, THE FACT THAT IT'S JUST DEBT STILL DOES NOT -- YOU CAN DECLARE BANKRUPTCY OR SAY I'M BROKE AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY MURDER YOUR BABY BECAUSE YOU'RE BROKE. HOWEVER, YOU'RE RIGHT. I AGREE WITH THAT'S A POSSIBLE THEORY OF WHY HE DID THIS. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN -- IT'S KIND OF A DEEP PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY BUT THE WHOLE ISSUE OF SHAME. HE PUT ON THIS INCREDIBLE FACADE. HE WAS ABOUT TO BE EXPOSED AS BASICALLY KIND OF A CON ARTIST. AND THE HUMILIATION MIGHT HAVE JUST BEEN OVERWHELMING TO HIM AND HE WANTED TO WIPE OUT EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY AROUND HIM. THAT WOULD BE THE THEORY, THE SHAME FACTOR. >> UH-HUH. >> THE ONLY THING THAT COMES TO MY MIND WHY HE MIGHT HAVE DONE THIS. >> IS THE DNA CONCLUSIVE IN THIS TRIAL? WHEN WE COME BACK WE'LL HEAR WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT AS WE REVEAL OUR ANSWER TO OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY. STAY WITH US. >>> PROSECUTORS SAY THE DNA TRAIL LEADS DIRECTLY TO NEIL ENTWISTLE. BUT THE DEFENSE SAYS THINGS AREN'T ALWAYS AS THEY APPEAR. MORE LIVE TRIAL COVERAGE AHEAD ON "OPEN COURT." >>> WE ASKED YOU TODAY IN OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY, IS THE DNA CONCLUSIVE IN THE ENTWISTLE CASE? OUR ANSWER COMES FROM GEORGE IN FORT MYERS, FLORIDA. HE WRITES, IT'S VERY SIMPLE. DNA DOES NOT LIE, BUT PEOPLE DO. THANKS FOR THAT ANSWER, GEORGE, AND THANKS FOR WATCHING DOWN THERE IN FORT MYERS. THE COURT IS ON ITS MID-MORNING RECESS. LIFE TESTIMONY WILL BE RESUMING IN A COUPLE MINUTES. I WANT TO USE THIS CHANCE TO SHOW YOU NEW TESTIMONY. IT'S OUR FIRST CHANCE TO BROADCAST IT. DASHIEL MUNDING IS A FRIEND OF NEIL ENTWISTLE'S. HE'S EXPLAINING TO THE JURY WHAT HE DID WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE THE LAST DAY HE SAW HIM. LET'S TAKE A LOOK. >> DO YOU RECALL GOING TO DINNER WITH BEN PRIOR ON ONE EVENING AND THE DEFENDANT? >> I DO. >> AND DO YOU RECALL ANOTHER EVENING WHERE THE THREE OF YOU WENT OUT TO THE MOVIES? >> I DO. >> I WANT TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE NEXT MORNING. WERE YOU WITH THE DEFENDANT THAT MORNING? >> YES. >> HAD HE SPENT THE PREVIOUS FEW DAYS AT YOUR APARTMENT IN LONDON? >> YES, HE HAD. >> WHAT TIME DO YOU REMEMBER GETTING OUT? >> IT WAS A WORKDAY. SO I WOULD HAVE BEEN UP SOMETIME BETWEEN 7:00 AND 8:00. >> WAS THE DEFENDANT THERE WHEN YOU GOT UP? >> HE WAS. >> AND DID YOU HAVE CONVERSATION WITH HIM? >> I DID. >> TELL US WHAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT. >> THAT MORNING NEIL HAD RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL IF HIS FATHER SAYING THAT THE POLICE WERE LOOKING TO ARREST HIM. AND NEIL TOLD ME THAT HE WAS GOING TO GO BACK UP TO WORK STOP AND TALK TO THE PLITS THERE. >> WHAT DID YOU DO? >> I OFFERED NEIL A LIFT BACK TO KINGS CROSS WHERE I'D PICKED HIM UP FROM WHERE HE COULD GET A TRAIN BACK UP TO HIS FAMILY HOUSE. >> DID HE ACCEPT THAT OFFER FOR A RIDE? >> NO, NO. HE PREFERRED TO BE MAKE HIS OWN WAY. >> SO WHAT DID YOU DO? >> NEIL AND I WALKED TO THE TUBE STATION SO HE COULD GET THE TUBE TO KINGS CROSS BY HIMSELF. >> THE TUBE WOULD BE SIMILAR TO A SUBWAY? >> PRECISELY. >> HOW LONG OF A WALK WAS THAT FROM YOUR HOME TO THE TUBE? >> FIVE MINUTES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> WHEN YOU GOT THERE, WHAT DID YOU DO, SIR? >> I SAID MY GOOD-BYES TO NEIL. SHOOK HIS HAND AND SLAPPED HIM ON THE BACK AND THAT WAS IT. I TRIED TO WISH HIM WELL, AND I MADE MY WAY BACK, WALKING BACK TO MY HOUSE. >> WHERE DID HE GO? WHERE DID YOU SEE HIM GO? >> NEIL WALKED UP TO THE PLATFORM. >> AND THAT PLATFORM HEADED TO WHERE? >> IT WAS THE PLATFORM HEADING TO LONDON ON THE TRAIN? >> THE SUBWAY FLAT FORM? >> THE SUBWAY, YES. >> AND YOU WERE WALKING HOME, DID SOMETHING OCCUR? >> I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL. >> FROM WHOM? >> FROM DETECTIVE. >> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE DETECTIVE? >> I DID. >> AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO? >> DEERFLOOD HAD -- >> AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION -- >> AS A RESULT OF THE CONVERSATION I WENT DOWN TO THE CHIEF STATION. >> YOU WALKED BACK THERE? >> I DID. AND I CLIMBED UP TO THE PLATFORM TO TALK TO NEIL. >> AND WHEN YOU GOT TO THE PLATFORM WAS THE DEFENDANT STILL THERE? >> HE WAS. >> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM? >> YES. >> WHAT DID YOU SAY AND WHAT DID HE SAY IN RETURN? >> I TOLD NEIL THAT I HAD RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM THE POLICE. THAT THEY WERE LOOKING TO PICK HIM UP IN LONDON. AND I SUGGESTED THAT HE COULD ACCOMPANY ME BACK DOWN -- BACK DOWN TO THE PAVEMENT OUTSIDE THE TUBE STATION WHERE THE POLICE HAD REQUESTED THAT I MEET THEM. >> WHEN YOU TOLD THEM THAT, WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT SAY? >> THE DEFENDANT SAID -- NEIL SAID THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO TALK TO THE POLICE HERE. THAT HE'D RATHER RETURN HOME. AND HE ASKED WHETHER THERE WAS SOME OTHER WAY OF GETTING OFF THE PLATFORM. >> AND WHAT DID YOU SAY? >> I SAID THAT YOU COULD LEAVE THE STATION ON A TRAIN OR DOWN THE STAIRS. >> AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO, SIR? >> I LEFT NEIL ON THE PLATFORM AND I WALKED DOWN TO THE PAVEMENT. >> WHEN YOU GOT OUTSIDE, DID YOU SEE ANYBODY? >> AFTER A FEW MOMENTS THE POLICE ARRIVED. >> DID YOU SPEAK TO THE POLICE? >> I DID. >> HOW MANY POLICE ARRIVED? >> THREE. >> AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT AFTER YOU SPOKE WITH THE POLICE? >> ONE OF THE THREE REMAINED WITH ME ON THE PAVEMENT. AND THE TWO OTHER OFFICERS WENT UP TO THE STATION PLATFORM. >> AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME DID YOU SEE THOSE TWO POLICE OFFICERS AGAIN? >> THEY CAME BACK DOWNSTAIRS OUT OF THE STATION AND GOT INTO THEIR CAR. >> AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO, SIR? >> AFTER SOME MOMENTS, THE POLICE OFFICER SAID I WAS FREE TO GO. I RETURNED HOME. >> AND DID YOU GO HOME? >> I DID. >>> AWE, ENGLAND. WHERE PAVEMENT IS SIDEWALK, THE TUBE IS THE SUBWAY, AND WHEN POLICE WANT TO ARREST AN ACCUSED DOUBLE MURDER THEY ASK THE FRIEND, DO YOU THINK YOU COULD SUGGEST THAT HE COMES OUT OF THE TUBE AND ACOMP NIED YOU TO THE PAVEMENT AND THERE UPON WE WILL EFFECTUATE THE ARREST? AND HE GOES DOWN AND TALKS TO NEIL ENTWISTLE IN THE TUBE PLATFORM. NEIL SAYS, I THINK I WOULD PREFER TO GO HOME BEFORE I'M ARRESTED. MUNDING COMES BACK UP, TELLS THE POLICE OFFICER, NO, I DON'T THINK HE WANTS TO BE ARRESTED RIGHT NOW. THEN THE POLICE GO DOWN AND EFFECTUATE THE ARREST. PETER ELIKANN, I FEEL LIKE THINGS WORK A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY HERE. >> YEAH. EVERYBODY IS SO POLITE. I GUESS WHEN THEY'RE LEADING YOU OFF TO JAIL THEY DO IT WITH PERFECT MANNERS AND ENUNCIATION AND GRAMMER, ET CETERA. >> HE WOULD RATHER NOT TURN HIMSELF IN. HE WOULD JUST RATHER NOT. HE WOULD RATHER GO HOME FIRST. IS THERE ANY DEFENDANT WHO WOULD RATHER NOT DO SOMETHING ELSE BEFORE TURNING HIMSELF IN FOR WHAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN PRISON? >> I'M SURE ALL MY CLIENTS WOULD SAY, GEE, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE MY PREFERENCE AT THIS TIME. SO IT IS -- IT DOES SEEM LIKE A VERY DIFFERENT SYSTEM. THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE GUNS THERE IN ENGLAND. >> THEY DON'T. >> YOU ARE CONSIDERED SORT OF GUILTY UNTIL YOU'RE PROVEN INNOCENT. THEORETICALLY WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT HERE. I HAVE A SUSPICION MOST PEOPLE DO THINK THAT SOMEBODY'S GUILTY EVEN THOUGH THE TRIAL ISN'T OVER. >> YOU'RE RIGHT. THE POLICE OFFICERS DON'T CARRY GUNS. THE CITIZENS DON'T CARRY GUNS. YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE THEY DON'T HAVE? GUN DEATHS. VERY FEW GUN DEATHS IN ENGLAND. A BIG THANKS TO BETH KARAS REPORTING LIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS TODAY AND TO OUR GUESTS PETER ELIKANN AND DR. STEVEN SIMRING HERE IN NEW YORK. TIME TO CHECK IN WITH RON CUE BY IN FOR JAMI FLOYD. FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP NEXT ON "BEST DEFENSE." >> AS SOON AS THEY GET BACK IN THE COURTROOM WE'RE GOING TO GET BACK IN THE COURTROOM. BY THE WAY, PEOPLE ARGUE NEIL ENTWISTLE SPLED. THAT SHOWS THAT HE HAD CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT. JUST REMEMBER, HE DIDN'T FIGHT EXTRADITION BACK TO THE UNITED STATES. SOMETHING HE COULD HAVE DONE. >> TRUE. >> SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE TAKEN YEARS. SO WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT HIS STATE OF MIND OR CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILTY? >> TRUE. VERY NICE POINT. THAT'S WHY IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU HERE. THANKS, RON. WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU IN JUST A MINUTE. THAT WRAPS UP MY TIME WITH YOU ON "OPEN COURT." I'M LISA BLOOM. I'LL BE BACK HERE TOMORROW MORNING 9:00 A.M. EASTERN WITH MORE TRIAL COVERAGE. THANKS FOR WATCHING. I'LL SEE YOU TOMORROW. |